Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-12-12
MORRIS BRIBERY CASE.
MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT


The case Of the state AGAINST Joseph
H. Morris. charged with bribery. was
called In the criminal branch Of the
Third distrlc. court today and should
the defendant. after the numerous OBJ
jcctions are disposed Of. 50 to trial u
will be for the third time.
Judge Norrel not wishinEeo ~ In the
case had Judge liar, come down from
the North 90 take hls place. The state
Il represented by County Attorney Van
Coti. Deputy Putnam, Attorney General
bishop and United states District At
torney G. q. whitiemore. while The de-
PENDANTS Interests are being watched
by Powers. siraup q Llppman and
LoOfbuurow q Lnufbour1w.
The whole Of today hiss been devoted
TO Che nnering ~ objections and nrEu.
mcnta thereon. ana IL looks ~ though
much time Will be consumed Ia shis
manner. The defendant IL 90 BE- tried
by a jury % twelve aud a big hgnt
may be looked for on this proportion.
Morris Il chafgti with a felony COM
mlited prior % statehood. The laws In
territorial days provided for trial by
q Jury Of twelve. Tho State Consiltu-
tion. which wen into erect January 4,
1896. provides Tor a jury Of eight. .N-
cop; In capital cases.
Since statehood number Of cases
(similar to the Morris easel have been
tried by Jury ~ eight. IN two OF these
eases convictions were secured and she
judgments affirmed by The supreme
court VI the State
In tho case OF the state aEilns, Lars
Thlmpton an appeal was fakcn 10 the
United states supreme court upon "A
writ % error AMI was reversed and re-
manded with directions to proceed with
nov trial. fhe court holding that the
law which provides for trial by - jury
of eight II oN post facto az to ofensss
committed prior 90 statehood and shat
a judgment ~ conviction Hereunder IL
a nudity. The question then arising u;
Have She courts authority IN law. 90
smpanel a jury " twelve and proceed
10 the trial Of such carr7 Attorney
General Bishop Will argue that the
court has the right 20 proceed with the
Morris trial with jury Of twelve;
THE NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS.
A. soon as Judge Norrcli had vncitcd
his seat In favor ~ judy Hart. thC
latter requested Cierk Little 90 make
an order 60 lhri eject on the recUrls nf
the court. judge Powers objected so
the order on che ground tina, their Nas
no reason shown and that she defend
ant had no opportunity 90 prepare his
uhitvil1n 10 tho suhiiiitNlon. and fur
thffmOre, thut no rtaHou had been given
f0T the disqualification ~ the original
Judge. The object lion was uv'rrul.i ana
an exception noted. Then the rNamlnt-
tlun ~ The jurors for whom special
vUnIr. was issued last Friday, on thair
vols dire. was proceeded with. lloyd
Park and 4. v. Mlnca 10, les on On
account u sickness In their families.
Attorney van chtt then Informed the
court that II would b. necessary 90 pro-
coed io trial upon = copy ~ the copy
u the original Indictment. for the rta-
son that The copy had also been lost,
Judge Powers objected 10 going %
frh unlerf tho original iEivim nj ~
a Cetrlned copy could be produced. To
proceed otherwise Wts a fnrt1ut abuse
u the rights and privileges guaranteed
to q fcnthH'a under the laws
The state called upon Frank For
roster. G. %. Whf'"mvre and ci,rk
Llttls 10 prove that che copy IN uouri
wuH nm exact capy ~ IN copy upon
which the defendant aF. wenS to tTsil.
Arguments pfI ana con were had on
mi. an r'ion. Mr.. Van Cou contondlng
that when the cOpy ~ thn original In
dlcimbeni was introduced m' the hH,
tfl1l ara allowed 90 stand, u hecam
the orlEinaLJudgcPowe said IL was IN,
height % nonsense 20 make that kind
" an argument ana cited numcrou'
authorities In ruppoic ~ H. position
1nt court oyrrrulcd the objection.
JudTr posNcra moved fqT a dismissal
f1r the waut ~ iur4Nkc;iln on sfs par
- shc CONT, iio contcndod shat Nv
NJ thoud have been given trial whcf
the ,ni.c'mert was returned hy 90.
grand jury. or az 4fasi .hr uuccctlmi
term 81 cuufg. Ma upil che f1ursf
term. sad Judge p0woff. was Morrl|
put On trial. The cyuT, hosi al juria
zach time u allowed copinuanee. al
ghe laws u uUih provide thdt de-,
lnudam ahall he gwen q speedy sfsai
There was uuihlng fT Judge Ham I,
hut ip dismiss the acton flr thc clf,
Vas row In a siate 81 anQGulua ducsc,
| gude."
County AttNfncy Van Cot said IN,
| quorion u Jurisdiction had ulrcld,
been passed upon ari chat cour
should have suiilclcDi rOFpcct for n
| decision. % permit ui no further argu
melf. Judge linft preferred 10 hcul
/ shr afsunrifis lut Ili uVerrulrd Mr
| Van GOES objection, when Judo,
| Lnnrbluruw followed In che line N ar
| gunner. commenced hy Inigp Puys.rs
| lic saii Norris was Indicted In SOFTEN
/ Der. 1895. and thrref. o. was entitled I.
a frial ui the Ssptcnh term. btt th,
prosecution had allowed thar tenn
| pass as wen ~ the December torn. IA 1l
! ah1 she erfms ~ Jaruiry. Anil Ia.
| September Tor 1896. No effnrt he 81.
| had BE- made hy che state ~ pH n
deferiati VA frial during che term