The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1898-12-28


holding the regular court OF quarter
sessions which then and there had sole
Jurisdiction over said grand jury and
Of all questions relating to. the busi-
ness and proceedings OF said grand
jury. but was Improperly and irregu-
larly made 60 the said James Cay Cor
don, who was on that day holding a
special session Of the court OF quarter
sessions for the trial Of bail cases only.
Nevertheless. said James Gay Gordon
irregulariy and improperly heard said
application and perempt0rily ordered
said witnesses TO appear before said
grand jury under penalty Of an attach
ment FOR contempt That a few days
later. on Wednesday. the go day OF
November 1898. your petitioners were
notified TO appear in court No. 646 be-
fore the said James Gay Gordon for the
purpose Of pleading or demurring to
the bills Of indictment which had been
Heretofore found against them. al
though the said James Cay Gordon had
not been regularly assigned TO hold said
court. but By reason Of his resignation
and retirement from the bench on the
day named for the appearance of de-
PENDANTS as aforesaid. said court was
without a regularly assigned judge 10
hear pending cases.
GORDONS PECULIAR ACTIONS.
That on the said 23d day Of Novem-
ber. 1898. the Hon. Thomas X. Flnleiter.
president judge Of the cour; OF common
pleas No. tof which court the said
James Gay Gordon had been thereto-
fore member), appeared in said court
Of quarter sessions and proceeded 10
preside over said court. although he
was not the judge who had been duly
and regularly assigned 10 hold said
court. That one Thomas K. Finletter.
4 son Of the said Hon. Thomas X Fin
letter. was at that time. and had been
Heretofore. an assistant district at
torney Of this county and had been as
signed TO the duty Of taking profession
al charge OF the above indictments IN
conjunction with the district attorney.
That on the day last mentioned your
petitioners presented to the said court
their demurrers ID the bills Of indict-
ment Nos. s2S 3e9, $50 and SSi (eopies
Of which are hereto attached. which
Cemurrers were subsequently Overruled
by the said Hon. Thomas X. Finletter
who rendered in connection Herewith
the opinion hereto attached. That sale
opinion was largely based upon the er-
roneous legal proposition that a person
charged with ? supposed criminal Of
fense has no right. under the constitu-
ton and laws Of this commonwealth.
to question the sufiiciency Of an indict-
ment found against him. but must Be
subjected to the disgrace. expense. in
convenience and peril OF a trial before
a Jury. because after conviction he may
possibly be able to successfully raise
the question as to the sufficiency OF
such an Indictment upon a motion in
arrest Of judgment.
That in said opinion oNerrullng said
demurrers said judge In commenting
upon and condemning the action OF
your petitioners and fling said demur-
rers used language which was wholly
uncalled for. and which would natur-
ally be interpreted by the community
as an expression OF the belief. on the
part OF said judge. in the guilt Of your
petitioners. and which necessarily tend
ed to excite undue preiCdice against
them in the minds Of the people in the
community and thereby TO prevent
their ohta ming a fair and impartial
trial That with she said demurrers.
your petitioner. Benjamin A. Haywood.
presented a motion 10 quash said in
dictment No. 332 "a copy of which is
hereta sttached). That the said Hon
Thomas X. Finletter, in his said opin-
ion, decided that the facts urged in the
support Of the motion 10 qussh could
hereafter he presented in arrest Of
judgment. and this. Notwithstanding
the fact Ihat the act Of assembly es-
pecially provides that ali such motions
must be made prior to plea pleaded.
UNDUE HASTE CHARGED.
That Immediately after the rendering
Of said orinion. to wit. on Thursday,
Dec l. application was made by the
district attorney to said Judge TO fix
The earlsst possible day for a trial Of
said defendants and. although said de-
PENDANTS. through their counsel. asked
for a reasonable time in which to have
an opportunity to have the books and
pSpers Of said Peoples bank examined
by experts. and although. as your petit
TONERS are informed and believe. about
two months were required 10y the ex-
perts employed by the district attorney
10 examine the books and papers in so
far as they related to said transactions
referred TO in said indictments. said
judge peremptorily ordered that the
trial Of your petitioners should proceed
on the Tuesday following. to wit, the
5th day Of December, thereby allowing
but three working days for an exam
ination Of said books and papers; and
said judge thereupon then and there
publicly stated. in effect, that your
petitioners would have all the time to
which they were entitled for such ex-
animation Of said books and papers
upon their being produced in court up
on the trial of said case. Said order
was, however. subsequently, modified
by said judge extending the time until
Monday. Dec. Il. on account Of the en-
gagement Of one Of petitioners counsel
in the United States court. thereby al
lowing your petitioners for said ex-
animation Of said books and papers
but nine working days; notwithstand-
ing the fact. as has been previously
averred. that nearly two months were
required by the commonwealth ex-
peTts for such examination. While
making such examination Of said books
and papers the experts employed by
your petitioners discovered that large
number Of checks, notes. bills. papers
and memoranda forming part of the
records Of said Peoples bank We're
missing and were locked up in the Of
fee Of the district attorney. and tSat
without an inspection n said papers
Il was absolutely impossible for them
TO understand certain entries in the
books Of said bank relating thereto.
Your petitioners. through their eoun-
sci requested an opportunity TO exam
Inc said papers in the district attorneys
office and were peremptorily refused
such permission Your petitioners aver
that the said refusal by the court 10
allow them proper time for an investl-
cation and examination OF said books
and papers and the said refusal by the
said district attorney 10 permit them
10 examine said papers in his custody
constitute an absolute denial OF justice
to them
PREJUDICE CREATED.
Your petitioners aver that by reason
Of the said action Of the said James
Gay Gordon. while he was a Judge, and
by reason Of the said action and deci-
sion Of the Hon. Thomas X. FinIetter.
whose afrliation with the said James
Cay Gordon is well known. such preju-
dice has naturally been created in the
body Of the community against your pe-
uiioners that Il win be impossible for
them 20 obtain a fair and impartial
trial at this time In the said court of
quarter sessions for the county Of
Philadelphia.
That it is not and never has been
pretended by anybody that either the
commonwealth OF Pennsylvania or said
Peoples bank or any other person ever
lost. OF could have lost. one penny by
reason OF any transaction referred tc
in said indictments. and that in none
Of said indictments are the defendants,
or either Of them charged with ar,,