Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-08-08
SPRY CASE To
HIGHER TRIBUNAL
Justice Smith Concludes That
Fraudulent Intent Was Shown,
AND HOLDS THE DEFENDANT
Case Was warmly Contested by Az
torneys of Both sides sheriff Nay
Ior aud John Morris Testify

The question Of the guilt or innocence
Of Samuel spry charged with the crime
Of embezzling $3.50 from John 5. cor
lass viii have 10 be settled in high
err tribunal than Justice Dana L.
Smiths court
That dignltary held this morning that
the state had made out its case ana
the defendant was held to answer TO
the district court. His bond was al
lowed 10 remain at $3.50, although the
County Attorney was OF the opinion
that II should be increased TO at least
$500,
The main point at issue, IN the mind
OF Justice Smith. was whether or not
the relation OF agency between spry
ana Corless existed at the time the
money was collected, and whether or
not II had been proved by the prosecu-
ton, His opinion was In the Affirm
alive. although the point was closely
contested aud he thought a higher
court should pass upon the matter,
Promptly at 10 o'clock Assistant
County Attorney Fred LoofbOurow
asked that the case be reopened His
motion was vigorously resisted Cy At
torneys Gustln and DAILY for the de-
tense. They argued that the case had
already covered a period of two weeks
I'm hearing and postponment and II was
not fair 20 the accused 10 reopen the
case al this time The motion Of the
state was granted
Sheriff Naylor and John p. Morris
were sworn and Mr.. Morris took
the witness stand He stated that he
knew spry, and had known him
for a number Of years
"Did YOU see him In JulyY'
81 did
'Where was IT,"
at was in San Francisco, but | do
not remember the date, | think II was
between the 18th or goth"
Asked where he saw Spry, witness
said il was In a court room called "the
Hall OF Justice That was all the
state cared to ask the witness and
counsel for defense did not deem II nee
essary 20 cross-examne him.
Sheriff G.. II Naylor testified that he
had known the defendant for four or
Ave years and saw him in San Francis
co during July.
Mr.. Loofbourow asked the sheriff IL
ne had any conversation with Spry
with reference to his whereabouts from
July 3rd until he came home. Witness
said he conversed with Spry on the
train. At this Mr.. Gustin jumped to
his feet and objected into going into
that conversation, unless at the time
the sheriff told the defendant that he
(Naylor) was an officer, and that what
ever Spry said would be used against
him.
Then | will ask YOU what your rela-
tions were with Spry at the time?"
said Loofbourow,
II was an officer, sheriff OF Salt Lake
county, and served a warrant on him."
Were any inducements held out 20
him.
Not In the least
Witness said he asked Spry at the
time where he was going to when he
left here That was also objected 10
by counsel for defense
Did you say" said Mr.. Gustln any
thing TO him MS to the best plan to
follow?'
81 said 1t would be best FOR him to
come home
spry told me to get all the money
and not let any Of the attorneys have
t."
Gustin then asked II Sheriff Naylor
told Spry that any statement he made
would be used against him.
II did not said Naylor
The attorney argued that under
those circumstances. an inducement
was held out to the defendant and Oh
jected to going any farther into the
conversation. Loofbourow insisted thar
no inducements whatever were held
out 10 Spry but the court sustained
the objection.
Answering the county attorney. the
sheriff said he returned TO Salt Lake
with Spry as officer and prisoner. ana
that he ala so on the authority OF re-
QUESTION papers issued by the Cover.
nor. That closed the testimony for the
state and both sides rested.
The prosecution asked that the de-
PENDENT be held 10 answer TO the
charge Of embezzlement
I'VE have proved said Mr. Loot
h0urow, that Spry was an agent for
Corless, that he collected $50 30 with thu
understanding tat Il was 10 be return.
ed forthwith by the defendant and that
he violated his trust and went TO Odgen.
Seattle and San Francisco. and that he
was brought back here under arrest"
Mr. Gustln for the defense said I'VE
insist on the discharge OF this defend
ant on the ground that the state has
failed 10 prove probable cause. What
have they shown? That Spry was n,
San Francisco, and that In an Interview
with Watson. a newspaper man he
said he left on account u family trou-
bles They must prove a crime. Have
they done so? They have not proved
the agency. nor any element Of II.
Agency means employment There must
be a contract. There Is no contract
Spry collected the money. but there was
no agreement 10 return II forthwith