Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1896-01-02

:
quest to the Attorney General and
said: 81 hope you will correspond
with Mr.. Rcnfro at once and take such
action in the premises as may be prop.
er." The Attorney General did in-
vestigate the conditions surrounding
the case and expressed the opinion
that assistance should be given the
Prosecuting Attorney, and l directed
him, as have in many other cases, to
give the Prosecuting Attorney such as
sistance as he could. In November,
1898, | received another letter from
Mr.. Renfro, asking me to direct the
Attorney General to be present at the
then ensuing term of the court in time
to aid not only in the actual trial OF
the case. but in the preparation for
trial. On November 9. 1898, re ferr-
ed Mr.. Renfro's letter to the Attorney
General. In my note of reference to
the Attorney General / said: Il have
already called this matter to your at
tention. l have written Mr.. Renfro
that while we desire to give every
proper assistance in enforcing the
law, hoped he would be able to pre-
| pare the case for trial, so as to save
you the trouble and expense of making
unnecessary trips. remaining an I'M
| necessary length of time, and thereby
increasing the costs of the prosecution.
OF course, l desire you take such &C
ton in the case as in your judgment
| may be necessary to secure fair trial
and proper results" The Attorney
General directed his assistant. MIR.
JOurdan. TO assist Renfro in the prose-
cution. The case had been transferred
| on change of venue to Dunklin county.
In January, 1894. / received d tele-
gram from Mr.. Renfro, dated at Ken
nett, to the following effect: LIN
Wear case State is ready; special
Judge and defendant not here; Judge
Wear will not permit election of spec
ial Judge. Can't take forfeiture. A
few days thereafter Mr.. Jourdan re-
turned from Kenneth and reported a
state of affairs in connection with this
case that was simply disgraceful. The
election, as Jourdan reported to me,
made a travesty of law and justice in
that court. 1t was positively shame
full. at once wrote Renfro as follows:
"a few days since / received the fol-
lowing telegram from you, dated at
Kenneth" (here l copied telegram as
above set forth), and today had con-
ference with Mr.. Jourdan, who has
been aiding you in the prosecution of
this case. l wish you would advise
me as to the exact status of the case.
| desire full statement in detail of
what has been said and done in the
way of obstructing the prosecution of
this case. l wish to be fully informed
with reference to the whole case''
On January 80, 1894, Renfro wrote me
long letter In reply. The Republic |
can have the letter for publication If |
desired. l will only state that it cor
roborated Jourdan's report-that ev-
cry means had been resorted to by the |
court to prevent trial and to break |
down the prosecution. He wrote that |
he had tried in every way to bring the
case to trial, but that the court posi-
lively refused to call the case for trial. /
That he then determined to nolle the |
case and endeavor to procure a new
indictment in Butler county, thereby
getting the case out of the hands of the
special Judge, then in control of it.
Renfro writes: 81 offered to enter a
nolle, when all the attorneys for the
defense spoke loud and long in opposi-
ton to a nolle. The court would not
permit the uolle to be entered. Ithen
demanded forfeiture of defendants
bond. CThe defendant was not in at
dance on the court.) The court over
ruled the notion" In short, Renfro
and Jourdan reported to me that they
could neither get the case tried nor
and that nothing could be
done but continue it. Finally a new
was returned by the Grand
Jury in Butler county. Circuit Judge
Riley of New Madrid was called in to
try the case. He went to Poplar Bluff
to try it. Mr.. Jourdan went there al
so to aid the prosecution. He returned ,
In a few days and reported to me that
Judge Wear refused to let Judge Riley
take the bench when he publicly Of l
Tered to do so, and that Judge Riley {
had gone home in disgust. The day Il
Jourdan returned to Jefferson City he q
a telegram from Renfro that s
another special judge, a particular &
friend of Wears, had been chosen to S
Try the case and was in the act of pro- {
,eeding. The Attorney General then i
applied to the Supreme Court for a a
writ prohibiting Judge Wear or the
special judge from further
proceeding in the case, and directing
Judge Riley to proceed with the trial
If the case. That was the substance I
If the order issued by the court. Judge I
Riley afterwards appeared and took q
.harge of the case. The defendant ]
vas arrested. brought before him and q
'rdered to Jail. The case was then
continued, that preparations might be a
made for the trial. During the vaca- "
ion the special judge who had charge
f the first case went to Poplar Bluff, n
rdered the prisoner brought before
lim and admitted him to bail. When II
curt was convened at the next term
Judge Riley was on hand, but the t;
prisoner was absent. The Judge di-
ected capias to be issued to the sher- )
Il of New Madrid county. and there
he case rested. 1t seems that while L
Dung Wear was out on bail he shot +
mother man, and was indicted for fell
NOUS assault on that account. q
About three weeks ago the Attorney
ieneral and the Prosecuting Attorney II
resented an application to me for a
equisition on the Governor of Tennes- e