The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-29

The everlasting Morris bribery case
was UP again yesterday in the criminal
division of the Third district court
with Judge Rolapp, of the Second
judicial district presiding, County At
torney Whittemore, assisted by Judge
Rhodes, prosecuting, and Judges Pow
ers and Loofbourow representing the
defendant.
The charge against Morris is that
he agreed to accept bride from Mar
tin Hayken, agent for the furniture
firm of Andrews & Co., in return for
which he was 70 vote, in his official
CAPACITY of county commissioner, 10
award the contract for furniture Tor
the county's half of the city and
county building to Andrews Co.
The case was tried month ago ana
resulted III a disagreement of the jury
Very little progress was made yes
terday the time up till nearly p. m.
being occupied in arguing motions of
counsel for the defense to dismiss the
Indictment. These being operruled the
work Of impaneling jury was be-
gun but il was found that most of the
Jurors in attendance were disqualified
e by reason of an error in the drawing
and a special venire for so jurors was
ordered issued returna Die at O'Clock
this afternoon 20 which time the court
adjourned.
PLEADS PREVIOUS ACQUITTAL.
Yesterday morning the proceedings
opened by Judge LoofbouroW moving
for a dismissal of the indictment on
the grounds Of former acquittal and
once in jeopardy, counsel arguing that
as Morris had already been tried and
acquitted on a charge of accepting the
alleged b-ibe he could not now be put
on trial for agreeing TO accept it, the
two acts constituting but one offense-
Counsel cited numerous authorities III
support of his motion.
Judge Rhodes replied on behalf of
the government and said that with
out pretending to make an argument
on the points of law advanced by the
defense, which were all good law, but
had no bearing upon the case in is
sue, to ask the court to pass upon the
pleas of "once in jeopardy" or former
acquittal, were clearly set forth in our
form of pleading as matters for the
jury to decide To ask the court to
gis Mt this motion, would be to request
a reversal of positions taken at former
trials, and likewise to reverse instruc-
lions given jurors. There has not"
continued counsel, been one reason
given why the court should reverse
itself
The defense also urged as a further
ground for dismissal that the prosecu-
ton had not exercised due diligence
and expedition in granting the de-
PENDANT as speedy trial as he was
entitled to.
JURY ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Judge Rolapp overruled the motion
TO dismiss, remarking that he would
take no action in that regard until
the case gets to the jury. His honor
then instructed the clerk to call jury
upon which Judge Powers objected to
the eIapanelIng of a jury, arguing that
the recent opinion of the state supreme
court, delivered by Justices Bartch
and Miner in the election case, which
allowed recourse to the journals Of the
two branches of the Legislature to
prove the enactment or n-enactment
of any law and reference to the journ-
ais, counsel argued. showed that the
act of the legislature regulating trials
by jury and so forth had never been
passed at all and consequently there
is no law in Utah authorizing the
summoning or drawing of grand or
petit jurors and the persons put for
ward to act in the capacity of jurors
were not really jurors but merely by
ISLANDERS.
not passed by the house. 1t originated
in the senate and was known as SEN
ate bill No. 20. 1t was passed by the
senate and sent to the house and there
amended and passed. 1t went back
to the senate, which refused to con-
cur in the house amendments. When
the bill got back to the house that
body declined to recede from its
amendments, and conference COM
mittee was appointed. The house
branch OF that committee reported
back, recommending that the house
recede, and the report was adopted.
The house journal shows that the
house simply adopted the report, and
that no aye and nay vote was taken
on final passage.
Another point raised was that when
the bill was passed and finally dis
posed of in the senate, it was moved
and carried that the title of the bill
stand as the title of the act yet the
enrolled bill and the published act
show that the title OF the act is not
the title that attached to the bill.
Counsel attacked another act and
raised the point that there is no law
fixing terms of court or giving courts
jurisdiction to proceed. The act is
one which originated in the house as
house bill No. l. The constitution
provides that every bill and joint reso-
luton shall be read three times in full.
The house journal shows that the bill
was read the first time in full and the
second time by title only. 1t does not
show that it was considered read in
1ull.
Judge Rhodes briefly replied, but
made no pretenSe of controverting the
of counsel for the defense.
PROCEEDING IN VAIN.
Judge Rolapp remarked that it
seemed to him that if what Judge
Powers had urged could be proved that
the courts for the past year had been
in vain and his honor or
dered a recess of 10 minutes to exam
inc authorities and on court reassemb-
ling said that it appeared to him that
there was probably some merit in
Judge Powers contention, but it was
q matter for the supreme court to pass
upon and he would therefore overrule
the motion and go on with the case.
TALESMEN DISQUALIFIED.
Eight talesmen were then placed in
The box for examination as to their
gtness to serve on the case and it was
noticed that two of them happened to
be Philip Neder and John Wood, both
of whom sat on the case at the previ-
Gus trial when the jury failed to agree.
Judge Powers objected TO the whole
panel, however, on the ground that
when the present panel OF jurors was
drawn on Nov. s. only 10 names were
in the -5ox instead of the full number
of 200 on the jury list.
County Clerk Stanton was examined
and stated that when the drawing