Arizona republican., 1901-11-14
COURTS OF JUSTICE
IA United States Case Crushed
 Between Two Laws
The Curious Manner in Which Rafael Soto Escaped Prosecution. The Work on the Territorial Side.


 man indicted by the late territorial grand jury, came up in district court yesterday. Butts is the same person who had been indicted by the same grand jury for stealing a lot of law ful money of the United States from a fellow employe on a ranch, James Sci fers. It was subsequently learned that the money stolen consisted of national bank notes and silver certificates and was therefore not United States money, so that the indictment was successfully demurred to. The indictment for lar ceny followed.
 When the case was called Attorney George P. Bullard for the defendant presented an affidavit of a somewhat startling character. The evidence against Butts consisted in part of a marked bill. which was found in his trunk and which was nos only identi- fled by Sellers as one of those which had been stolen from him, but which he had previously described to the dis trict attorney. In his affidavit MT. Bull lard said that he had been told by John Long, one of the witnesses for the de- fense that Sellers had told him that he had marked that bill and put it into the pocket of vest which he found in Butts trunk. Sellers, he said, had done
  guilty, but the evidence against him being lacking, he had endeavored to supply some with the hope that the rest might come out in the wash and that he might get his money hack. Long is not now a resident Of the ter ritory. The affidavit was filed and the case was continued for resetting.
 In the case of w. H. Stillwell vs. $. Morgan Smith to collect an attorneys fee of $3,500 for services in the famous King of Arizona case. the plaintiff filed a motion to strike out the defendants plea in abatement on the ground that the defendants attorney in the case, Judge Conroy of Los Angeles was not a regularly enrolled attorney in this territory. A petition for intervention in garnishment proceedings in the same case was presented.
 In the case of w. J. Birchell who had been indicted for an assault. upon J. F.. Sturgeon of Tempe with intent to com init murder. an agreement was made by which the defendant might be all lowed to plead guilty to assault with a deadly weapon A very interesting point was raised in the United States side of the court in the case of Rafael Soto, charged with cutting wood or timber on government
 
 term of court at which Soto was indict- ed. The indictment was demurred to on the ground that wood described as tim Der was mesquite and the demurrer was sustained. The government took an appeal under the law which allows the prosecution in a criminal case an appeal in a matter of law. but not in one of fact. The supreme court re- versed the order sustaining the appeal  court should have proceeded to the trial of the case on it's merits.
 When the case came up yesterday the government found itself confronted by an impossible condition. The law re- quires that an indictment not disposed of al a term of court and which is not referred to the succeeding grand jury can have no place in the calendar of the succeeding term. The prosecution having appealed from the order in the Soto case could not lay the matter again before the grand jury of that term and so cause it to be referred A prosecuting officer believing an in- dictment to be sound would naturally not draw up another to be presented to the court.
 The prosecution therefore found itself in the curious position of having been sustained by the supreme court. yet our of court The case was ordered strick- en from the calendar. The case was not an important one and is valuable only by reason of having drawn an ex- pression from the supreme court for fu- ture guidance and by showing the ne- cessity of making the two laws fit each other more closely. If this had been a murder case instead of an unimport- ant timber cutting case the situation would have been an unfortunate one.
 Jose Maria Martinez pleaded guilty to selling liquors to an Indian and waiving the time for sentence. was sen fenced to four months in the county jail and to pay fine of $100. The last incident of the day was the conviction of O. l.. Collins of selling liquor to an Indian. Less than a year ago Collins, when bar tender at Branen's saloon at Five Points. sold liquor to a man he said he thought was Mex ican but who afterward turned out to be an Indian. Collins was indicted by the next United States grand jury, but a trial jury could not agree and the case went over to the present term. The defense was mainly that Collins had reason to believe when he sold the liquor that his customer was a Mexi- can. The presumption of the bartender in such cases is. however, not a de- fense. It is his business to know whether or not he is dealing with au Indian and in the absence of such knowledge on his part the law makes it a duty to himself as we'll as to society to give himself the benefit of the doubt and refuse to sell
 The case went to the jury before 2 o'clock and 1t was nearly five hours later before the verdict was returned
 
 DISTILLERS' COMPLAINT.