Arizona silver belt., 1896-03-19
A REMARKABLE CASE.

cases ever known in Arizona"
 Remarkable it was in several par ticulars. Remarkable in the attempt of Judge Lynch to take jurisdiction after the voluntary surrender of Tewks- bury, who, upon learning from George F. Wilson that warrant for his arrest was in the hands of a deputy sheriff then at Newton's ranch, rode twelve miles to meet that officer, when it was in his power to have avoided arrest. Tewksbury not only sought the officer to surrender, but willingly accompanied him ITO miles to meet his accusers, when advised that a mob was await ing his arrival in Phoerix for the avowed purpose of taking his life. Mir. Tewksbury's demeanor under such ex- citing circumstances was most com mendable, and would have been remarkable had he been guilty of the murder with which he was falsely charged.
 One of the most remarkable features of this remarkable case was the vin- dictivehess of the people of Maricopa county. On the eve of the preliminary examination, so loud were the threats against the defendants, Tewksbury and Rhodes, and their witnesses, that the sheriff admitted the witnesses to the jail and armed them, and also Tewks- bury and Rhodes, for defense against the bowling mob without That was a remarkable fact, which probably the people of Phoenix do not want to be reminded of.
 The envenomed temper of the people is further illustrated by the attempted assassination of John Rhodes when undergoing preliminary examination for alleged participation in the murder of Tom Graham, and the action of the grand jury who indicted Tewksbury and Rhodes, yetrefused to take cogni- zance of the crime of the person who attempted to shoot Rhodes in the justice court in the presence of at least one hundred persons, witnesses to the outrageous act. Was not this, too, re- markable?
 It was under this state of the public mind in Maricopa county that Tewks- bury was forced to apply yor change of venue, which was grudingly granted, to Pima county. As the day set for the trial in Tucson approached, deputy sheriffs were on the alert notifying witnesses for the prosecution, for whom transportation to Tucson by rail had been provided, to be on time to take the conveyance furnished by Maricopa county, under the conduct of special deputy; and thus 1t was that Terri torial witnesses were rounded up and herded to the very door of the court house.
 The prosecution cooked and primed, as it believed, for victory, the legal battle began. The prosecution de- pended mainly upon the testimony of two female witnesses who, although they had never seen Tewksbury before, identified him as the man they had seen riding away from near the scene few minutes after the shooting of Graham. The evidence of other wit. nesses for the prosecution was even more vague and dubious.
 The defense introduced seven wit nesses, reputable citizens of Pleasant Valley and Tonto Basin, namely, W. H. Voris, William Colcord, George F. Wilson, Dick Williams, Joseph Boyer, W. H. Thomas and Jacob Laufer, who testified to seeing Ed Tewksbury at various hours and dates from noon of August l to the morning of August 3, at the Bouquet ranch, Tonto, and at several places in Pleasant Valley. The alibi, with an unprejudlced public sentiment, would be considered com plete, yet the jury, swayed doubtless by unreasoning public clamor, returned verdict of guilty. Here, then, is
  another remarkable fact A raan found guilty Of heinous crime upon circum- stantial evidence of the fimsiest char acter rebutted by the positive testi- mony of seven reliable men who bad seen the defendant on the day of the murder of Graham, or the day before or after, 150 to 175 miles from the place where the killing occurred. This, We think, will be considered by an unprejudiced mind as very remark able.
 However, providential as it may seem, the verdict was not to stand. There was fatal flaw in the proceedings. In the excitement incident to this re- markable case, the defendant was not called upon to plead, an omission that vitiated the entire proceedings. The case was tried second time, the testi- Inony of two of the principal witnesses for the prosecution was impeached, and the jury, after long deliberation, were unable to agree and were dis