Arizona republican., 1897-12-21
A BREAKING OF INDICTMENTS.
Editor Pugh Removsd From the
 Shadow of the Law


 thGlee indictments against Charles w. Pugh for embezzlement, twisted them into four g7rnwads and fired them of. There are now no Indictments against MT. Pugh. The matter of the indict- ments came up in distrtet court late in the afternoon. Judge Baker found four defects in the indictments, each one of which was worse than the pre- ceding one. Three of them might have been cured, but the last one was irremedial. The first demurrer was on the ground that no public offense was charged. Embezzlememt of pub lie funds by the e2-secretary of the livestock board was alleged The em- bezzlement was described as felonious, but the essential word fraudulent, :" establishing an fn'terh to commit a crime was emitted.
 Regarding the allegation that Mir. Pugh had embedded pub Ec funds, Judge Baker said the ownership of the funds must be made known. There was nothing in this bill of indictment to show that the public funds were the public funds of the territory or of Maricopa, Yuma or Pima county.
 Of the $500 alleged to have been ean- bezzied it was alleged in one indict- ment that $50 had been converted to the use of Miss IiEhn FInckleman and another indictment charged that another sum had bern converted to the use of B. Heymzn. The bene- ficiary in one case had performed cler- ical services for the board and the other had furnished an article of fur niture which was yet the property of the board There was nothing in Ehe indictments to show that these bene- fciaries were not entitled to the sums converted to their uses.
 But the last demurrer was one which not only defaced and crippled the indictmen but destroyed it for all time to come. There was nothing, said Judge Baker, in the law creating the livestock sanitary board which made the secretary an officer of the board or invested him with power to handle any of its funds or amy public fucIs. If there had been such an em- bezzlement as the bill of indictment described. the only persons subject to indictment were the members of the board At the close of Judge Baker'a address the court asked Judge Kihbey, assistnmt distrscf attnrpls if he wikned to reply. He said he d.d< mt. Ine court suggested that he take time b look up the last ground upon which the plaintiff had demurred. Judge Kibbey said he was already satisfied as to its soundness. He admitted not only the law, but tine facts set forth and said he had ssnE word to the grand jury khat TO indictment should be returned against MT. Pugh. Judge Street inEimated that any one of the first three defects in the indictments was fatal, and said he had cnLy sug- gested further consideration of the fourth in order to determine whethsr the matter might be referred to the next grand jury. He, however, direct ed an order to be entered sustaining the demurIers.
 Alt the close of this proceeding Col. E. J. Edwards of Globe arose to argue a demurrer to the indictment of Dr. H. A. Hughes for criminal libel In this same ma1ttSr plea in abaham snt, au objection to the manner of conEi- tuting the late grand jury and a cha1- lenge of some of it's members had been previously filed. Col. Edwards im- quired if in the event. of slle overrul- ing of the demurrer the defense might fall back on these plees. Consent having been given, Ccq. Edwards de murred to the indictment as defective | ill form in that l{he names of the wit neeses bsfore the grand jury were not indorsed upon the document. He de mured more especially on the ground that no public offenge had been changed. That, though it was set forth that the defendant had procured Ihe publication of contain wirful and ma licious utteranres, it failed to set forth that he had dome SO ''wilfully and mal.ciously," thereby Leglecting to state malicious purpose. Judge Kibbey of the district attorneys of flee replied that that allegation was i not necessary, that "mhlice" was inn piled in the character of the publica- tion. He asked permission to submit authorities on the subject. It wes late ! in the afternpon and the matter went over until this morning. Before ad- journing, attention was called by ths court to the case of J. H. FleGnister. who had been indicted for the same offense A similar demurrer had been l presented in his case, but it was not argued, but overruled. Beiag in- formed that it was identical in form with the indictment against Dr. A<,b1 1rcrf<,-