The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-11-03
L0GHRIIE NEVER
SAW COMPLAINT
Magistrate TeStifies in the Luke
Case.
TRIAL ON FORGERY CHARGE
LUKE'S CLERKS SAY EVERY
THING WAS REGULAR.
TRIAL ON FORGERY CHARGE


Francis G. Luke, manager Of the
Merchants Protective association, who
is charged with forging the name Of
Justice Peter Lochrie to a summons
in civil suit. was given a preliminary
hearing before Judge Nielsen in the
Old police court room yesterday. The
evidence IF both sides was introduced
ana the arguments closed late yester-
Gay afternoon, after which Judge Mel
sen took the case under Amusement I'm
I'll next Monday.
The charge against Luke Is that on
Sept. II last. before any compi9int had
been filed N Judge Lochrie's court and
before any original summons had been
issued by The justice, Luke forged the
name of Judge LOchrie 10 a document
summOning G.. W Palmer to appear in
LOchries court to defend an action
commenced against him by j. D. Wood
Of Pennington, TO recover Sl.63 alleged
TO be due on a debt.
The case was called at 10 o'clock yes
terday morning and was conducted by
Assistant County Attorney Ritter for
the prosecution and Attorney A. l.,
HOppeugh for the defense.
The first witness was c. W. Palmer
who testified that about the 18th of
September he received a letter and
summons from Luke and that it pur-
ported TO be a summons for him to
appear before Judge Lochrie to defend
an action against him for Sl.63. He
said that he had secured Attorney
String feilOw to defend him. Stringfel-
low testified that he went to Judge
LOchrie's court to see the complaint in
the case, but that after a long search
they were unable TO find it and that
the Judge had no recollection of having
had it. He and Judge LOchrie went to
Luke's office and demanded the original
summons. but Lu' made no effort to
produce it and conflicting stories
as 10 where it y .. The witness said
he went back to .ochTie's court about
the S0th Of September and found a
complaint which appeared to have been
recently made out and which bore con-
fiicting dates, one of which had been
crossed out.
Justice Lochrie, the most important
witness for the prosecution, then took
the stand and was shown the puT-
ported complaint and original sum-
mons. When asked when he had first
seen these papers he stated that it was
on the 9th Of September. When asked
il he had ever seen them before that
time he replied that to the best of mis-
recollection he had not. On cross ex-
animation he admitted that sometimes
complaints were in his -ffice several
days before he docketed chem. When
his attention was called to the con-
fiictirg dates on the complaint, he eX-
planned them by stating that the date
18th was the date of the issuance Of
the complaint.
Testimony for Defense.
The prosecution then rested and the
defense had its inning. Miss Gleason.
Luke's CHEZ clerk, testified they kept
cards in the Office upon which were
recorded the dates Of the making out
Of complaints. the filing of them and
the issuance Of original SummOnses and
aii iata about the case. A card puT-
porting 70 show that the Palmer case
complaint had been made out Sept. II,
filed in -0chrie's court Sept. Il and an
original Summons issued on that date
was presented as evidence and Miss
Gleason testified that the entry Of the
filing of the complaint on the 18th was
in her own handwriting.
Miss Mary Jensen, another clerk, tes-
titled that the date ''9-17-0I' on the
complaint was in her handwriting and
had been put there on the date Of the
Ming OF the co plant which. she said
was the 18th. She testified that she saw
the original summons when II was
brought back from court and that she
had written and mailed the copy TO
Palmer. She testified that she filed the
original summons away in a summons
box. Attorney RiCer attempted to show
by CrOSs-eXaminatiOl that Luke had
blank sUmmOnses in his office all ready
signed by LochTie and that the pUr-
ported original summons had been
filled out on one of these. but the wit
ness denied that they had any such
sUmmOnses il the ofhoe.
After Miss Ida Engberg had given
some testimony about the manner of
handling cases in the Office Attorney
HOppaugh was sworn and testified that
he had had a conversation with Loeb
RE about the case in which he had said
tNat the date, nth" was the correct
date Of the filing and that he supposed
the summons had been issued on that
date.
He said" said Hoppaugh, that
Luke's clerks always mark the date of
filing on the complaints and he went
by them for convenience"
With this the defense rested its case
and both sides argued it at considerable
ength. Judse Nielsen then took the
matter under Amusement.