The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-11-24

| The bribery cases in connection With
the city and county building furniture
deal, which have been slumbering for
several months, were again brought
prominently before the public gaze yes
terday. when ex-County Commissioners
Morris and Bamberger were put for
ward for trial. 1t was agreed to try
Morris first and that Bamberger's trial
will Immediately follow.
OF the many indictments. the one Sc
lected by the prosecution was that
which charges that Joseph R. Morris.
being on March l, 1894. an executive
officer of the territory of Utah, to-wit:
a selectman of Salt Lake county and
member of the county court, and hav-
ing then and there under construction
the county's portion of what is known
as the joint city and county building,
in Salt Lake City. and A. II. Andrews
& Co. of Chicago being DESTROYS to
furnish furniture for the county'S pOr-
ton of the said building, for price to
be agreed upon, the said Joseph r.
Morris did then and there agree with
Martin Hayken, the agent of Andrews
q Co., to receive from Andrews & Co.
bride, to-wit, a large sum of money,
the amount of which is to the grand
jurors unknown, with the understand
ing that his vote. opinion and action.
as such selectman, in regard to said
county purchasing said furniture from
Andrews &, Co. should be influenced
thereby in favor of Andrews & Co
County Attorney Whittemore and
Special County Attorney Rhodes ap-
peared to prosecute and Judges Powers
and LOOfbourOw defended Mr. Morris.
Judge Powers at the outset moved
Ia ind nfr 70. h,
that the trial of the defendant had been
put off from term to term, on the mo-
ton Of the prosecution, when the de-
PENDANT all the time had a right to
have his case heard and was anxious to
go to trial. 1t was also set up that the
defendant has already been acquitted
OF the offense charged in the Indictment
on May %, on the Indictment No 1882.
which charged a similar offense on a
different date, and that being once in
jeopardy he could not be again placed
on trial for the same Offense.
The motion was argued at consider
able length and Overruled, his honor re-
marking that after the previous trial
or the defendant on another Indictment
public sentiment was worked up TO a
nigh pitch and the cOntinuanceS which
followed were not unreasonable The
jury In the last case had done their
duty and in accordance with the law
and the evidence. his honor thought,
they could not have returned a verdict
other than the one of not guilty which
they arrived at.
The motion to dismiss being over
ruled, the defendants counsel then
moved for continuance on the ground
that the defendant and his counsel con-
hdently and in good faith believed that
the motion to dismiss would be sus
tanned and that preparation for the
trial would be unnecessary. and that
for that and other reasons the de-
fendant could not safely proceed to
trial
Defendant wanted time to get J. r
Delaney, an important witness. here
and also time to get from Chicago
dispositions of A. H Andrews. p. A
Carey and F. A Holbrook.
The motion for continuance was also
oNerruled and the work of empaneline
a jury commenced. and proved quite a
difficult task. as it was very hard to
find anybody who hadn't expressed a
decided opinion of the guilt or inno-
cence of the defendant.
Judge Powers was much easier salts
ned With jurors than the prosecution
the latter being exceedingly searching
IN their examination of the taIesne1
When court adjourned at o'clock the
following six gentlemen were in the
jury box, accented by both sides and
sworn to try the case: D. n. Parry.
W. n Sharp. John Wood. H. p. Burns
Daniel Dunno and Philip Neder Two
more are necessary to complete the
panel and they will doubtless be OBJ
tanned this morning, so that the taking
or testimony will commence today.
martin Hayken, the most important
witness for the prosecution, Mr.. Whit
temore says, will be in attendance. but
VIII not likely be put on the stand un-
til tomorrow
His testimony Will doubtless be about
the same as what he gave at the last
triai OF Morris, when he turned states
evidence.
These cases are being tried before
Judge RolapD, who came from Ogden
purposely to hear them.