Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1896-01-16

the case continued generally. Ini'
was the second continuance generally
take by the State. l at the time call
ed his attention to the fact that he wa.
the representative of the State and
with the statute staring him in the
face, he could not afford to do it. He
insisted. and no objections being in
terposed by defendants counsel. the
order was made. At the next sitting
of the court, while / was on the way
to the depot en- route to Keunett, met
Renfro near the Morris House, in Pop
lar Bluff, and said to him: Il am 60
ing to kennett Court and my purpose
is to call up the Wear case and have
some disposition made in it." l fur
ther informed him that l wished him
to 60. He said that he would do So.
and he did go. AT that court l had
the clerk docket the case again and
called it for trial. Renfro, as counsel
for the State, asked for continuance,
giving as his reasons therefor that he
was not ready for trial. l asked him
if he could not get ready for trial at
an early day. His reply to this ques-
tioD was no. / asked counsel for de-
fendant if they desired formal applica-
tion and they answered in the mega
tive. Thereupon the order was made
continuing the case. At the same
term of court and only a short time af-
ter the continuance was taken, coun-
sci for defendant filed a motion before
the court asking for the discharge of
the prisoner under section 4,213 of the
Revised Statutes of Missouri. With
that section of the statutes before me
asked counsel for the State what he
had to say. His reply was that the
statute did not apply to that case.
Four terms Of the court have expired.
and the State having failed to bring
the defendant to trial, the delay not
being occasioned by want of time to
try the case, and no application for a
continuance having at any time been
made by the defendant, the court, as
was his duty, discharged the defend
ant from answering to the charge made
against him.
Notwithstanding the fact that
Charles Wear had been discharged by
a court of competent Jurisdiction, un-
der the statute made aud provided, at
the May term of the Circuit Court of
Butler County, Renfro induced the
Grand Jury of Butler County to prefer
another Indictment against Charler
Wear for the same offense and, as af
terwards learned, the Indictment was
a literal copy of the first. l, as the
special Judge selected to try the case.
was never legally notified Of the find
ing of new indictment for the same
offense from which he had had a stat
utory acquittal, and which was and is
a complete bar to another Indictment.
As learned from the records of the
Circuit Court Of Butler County, Judge
Riley had been requested by the clerk
of the court to come to Poplar Bluff
and try case in which Judge Wear
was disqualified from sitting.
Judge Riley came over and from
some cause, | know not what. went
away Without calling the case. At the
November term, 1895, Judge Riley, at
the earnest solicitation of Governor
Stone, as have been informed, came
to Poplar Bluff and took charge of the
case of the State of Missouri against
Charles Wear, charged with the MUIR
der of Ed Lael, the same identical case
that | had been selected and agreed
upon as special judge to try, and who,
alone had jurisdiction, and who, in the
exercise of that Jurisdiction, had dis
Wear from further answering
the case. Itwas brought to my knowl-
edge by petition for writ of habeas
corpus that Charles Wear, the same
man that l, as special judge, had dis
charged from further answering in the
case of the State of Missouri against
him for the murder of Ed Lael, at Pop
lar Bluff, in Butler County, Missouri,
in the year 1892, was then restrained
Of his liberty by virtue of a commit
ment issued by Judge Riley for the
killing of Ed Lael. Being satisfied
from the ruling of the Supreme Court
of Missouri in former adjudications
that the Jurisdiction of that case re-
mained with me, l issued the writ, the
Sheriff of Butler County brought Wear
before me, and, after satisfying N.Y.
self that it was for the same Offense, |
him as was my duty, and
for this | am called in question, and |
Governor Stone, in his letter, says
that l came to Poplar Bluff and Or
1ered Wear brought before me and ad-
nitted him to bail. l wonder if Gov
ernor Stone is as certain of that as he !
IS that Charles Wear was charged with |
IN assault with intent to kill a man in |
New Madrid County and for that rea-
ION he ordered him turned over to the |
Sheriff of New Madrid County instead |
If to the Sheriff of Butler County, |
where the Indictment was found. Gov
srnor Stone. judging from his letter,
has been fearfully imposed upon.
lm loath to believe that the executive |
If this grand old commonwealth would |
rave issued requisition on the Gever-
,or of Tennessee for the arrest and de-
livery of Charles Wear to his messen-
yer that he might bring him back to
he State of Missouri for the murder
If Ed Lael in Butler County. Missouri,
{ he had known the facts in the case.
am informed by the Governors letter
hat he was arrested in Memphis un-
Ter his reauisition and released upon
writ Of habeas corpus (they have not
suspended that writ in sweet old Ten
lessee), issued by Circuit Judge Gallo
way. After thorough examination OF
he records of the courts OF Dunklln
md Butler counties in the State OF
Missouri, by certified copies thereof,
md an examination OF sections 4Z2o
md 1924 of the Revised Statutes OF