The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-01-08

Last weeks grand Jury established
4 precedent which will doubtless be
followed quite generally ny its prede-
cessOrs. 1t is that of placing on TIL"
prosecutors the costs in cases that are
ignored because Of defective tran
scripts.
over $50 of the bills ignored last
week were for this cause, and in al
most every instance the jury put the
costs on the prosecutor instead of on
the county, as is customary. The pur-
pose of this Is to check a steal which
unscrupulOus magistrates have been
practicing.
In Its final report. filed Saturday,
the Jury unhesitatingly says that
many of these defective transcripts
are due to neither carelessness nor ig-
norance. A member Of the jury (a:er
on speaking to a Tribune reporter said
1t was the positive belief of all the
5urymen that magistrates sent in de-
fective transcripts knowing them to
be defective and that they would be
ignored. Their sole purpose was to
pile up bill of costs, the greater part
Of which would be made up Of theirs
and their cOnstabless costs. These
costs, they figured. would be placed o,
the county. and all that would be nec-
essary to do would be to go to the
county commissioners Office and draw
them.
CRIED A HALT.
The grand jury, however, put halt
on this little game by placing the costs
on the prosecutor. The alderman, con-
stable and witnesses must now get
their fees out of the prosecutor If they
get them at all. The prosecutor, of
course. can saddle the costs on the
county by declaring himself an insol-
vent. but. as this would necesstate
his transferring all his property, pay
ing lawyer to present and argue his
petition and settling a lot of prothono-
tary's fees. 1t Is a question if, in the
long run, the prosecutor will not pre-
fer to pay the costs in the ignored case.
There were a number of instances
during the week of prosecutors de-
claring before the grand jury that the
transcripts were sent in against their
wishes. In some cases the prosecute or
had supposed the case was discontin-
ued and only learned to the contrary
upon being subpoenaed before the
grand jury. The final return contained
thirty-four true and one hundred and
eighty-nine ignored bills. The true
bills were as follows:
THE TRUE BILLS.
Arson-William Williams; Fred Keetcr
pros. Williams; Fred Keefer, pros.
False Pretences-Roley Bellies; W. C.
Carey, pros. Frank Kapuscinski; b. 10.
sephsOn, pros.
Robbery-Jar1es Fisher; Frank Robling
jr.. pros.
Carrying Corccacd Weapon - Johr
Scalzo: stephen A. Gilby. pros.
Malicious Mischief-William r. May
Mary May. prox. Emil Hubschmln
Hannah Hubschlnah; Mary Schwartz
prox.
Larceny and Receiving-James Ham
mill: Frank Roblng. jr., pros. SanIe
Smith; Frank RObling. jr., pros VIII
lam r. Kelly, Frank Robling. ir. pros
Hugh Winkler; Seymour Purdy. pros
Frank Kardarles; Mary Kutcavase, prox
Andrew kocuch; Benjamin Mendelson
pros.
Larceny by Bailee-Bel Williams
alias Belle Low; Jennie Roadway, prox.
Aggravated Assault and Battery-Rich
ard Sively; Thomas LeyshOn pros. Jo
seph Kreschelfskie, Tealtil Gardotzski
pros.
Assault and Battery-Eml Hubschman
Henry Schwartz. pros. Robert Guard
Idt'cA 1dHdsHer' pros' AHthon! nua'e
Anthony Barrett. pros. Victor Dymesky
Edward Perknskie, pros. Walter ii
Sweet, Arthur T. Sweet: b. a. Fox, pros
Evan Thomas; Christmas Davis, pros
John Richards; Mrs. Christmas Davis
proX.
The jury recommended, among othe
things, that man be employed regu
larly to run the elevator. and that
better heating system be adOpted il
the court house.
Judge Archibald informed the jur!
that this latter matter had been al
ready attended to by the commission
ers.