Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-02-17

tinued indefinitely, The continuance
was granted by Judge Stewart upon an
aifidavit subscribed by the defend
ant and presented by Judge King, Of
counsel for defense, showing that Col.
NJ, shaughnessy u very important Wit
ness for the defense, Is absent from |
the state and unable to be present, and |
that his deposition could not be secured |
in time FOR the trial TO proceed.
The motion FOR continuance was a
complete surprise to every one con-
lected with the case, except defend
ants attorneys, the affidavit even be-
ing signed by the prisoner after bis
arrival IN the court room. District
Attorney Elchnor protested vigorously
against the continuance and argued
that the defense had not used due dlli-
gence In their efforts to secure the
presence Of the Witness, and that HIS
testimony as set out in the affidavit
would BE- immaterIal and inadmlgslble
AFTER MoRTENsEN CASE
The case win not be brought up
again until after the Mortenson ease
which Is set for May g. and there is a
slight possibility that II win 20 over
until the fan term Of court owing
10 the fact that the courts calendar "
Ifetty wen filled with other criminal
matters Il win be impossible 10 get
the case before Mortengens trial and
% that trial vii probably last
month, that would bring the Kalghn
case w In the middle OF The summer
and during the regular summer yaca-
ton and hence II IS probable that the
case will 60 over until fall
LIGHT ATTENDANCE.
There was rather light attendance
In the court this morning when the case
wac called, there being not over ilfty
people, inclusive OF attorneys and jur-
ora, present
Mrs. kalghn the siep-mother Of the
accused man, was the first person.
closely Interested In the matter, 20 app
pear She In company with Frank
Hoffman, one OF the defendants at
torneys, entered the courtroom Il few
minutes before 10 o'clock and occupied
seat inside the railing whore she
was Joined later by the prisoner
Just three minutes before 10 O'Clock
the youthful defendant, accompanied by
his father, Col M. M Kalghn and
Deputy Sheriff Cummings, entered the
room and young Keighn, after greeting
one Of his attorneys, walked to where
Mrs. Kalghn was sitting and greeted
her and occupied a chair beside her
where he remained dcring the proceed
ings.
His step-brother M. H. Kaighn was
also present and took part IN the CON
ference between the prisoner and his
attorneys In relation to the affidavit
which was the means Of securing the
continuance. Soon after Judge King
arrived, he called Roy Kalghn, his
father and step-brother aside ana they
were busly engaged for several min
utes in reading the afiuaylt, after
which they stepped TO the clerks desk
where Roy signed the same Senator
Brown was the last OF defendants at
torneys TO arrive.
THE CASE CALLED.
Upon the court being convened Judge
Stewart announced that the first case
on the trial calendar Is the state OF
Utah VIZ Merrill M Kalghn and asked
n the attorneys were ready for trial
Judge King, on behalf Of the defense
then said II your honor please, we
have an affidavit to file In this case
After the document was marked 'tled
by the clerk Judge King handed copy
to District Attorney Eichn0r and then
read the affidavit which Is as follows
"State of Utah W. Merrill NJ.
Kaighn, defendant. State Of Utah,
County OF salt Lake So. Merrill NJ
Kaighn, being sworn up0n oath says
That he Is the defendant IN the above
entitled cause that ne has been I'M
prlsoned IN the county Jail OF the
county Of Salt Lake since the 26th day
of November 1901 that on the 18Th
day of January, 1902, the above en-
titled cause was set for trial IN said
court FOR the nth day Of February
1909; that afllant was advised by his
father, NJ. M Kaignh, ON or about
the ist day OF January, 1902 that Col,
M Shaughnessey was necessary and
important witness IN his behalf ana
that said Shaughnesscy would be at
the trial to testify in said cause as a
witness In behalf Of the defendant
whenever said case was called for
trial. That said Shaughnessey resides
In Salt Lake city, Utah; that imme~
diately after said case was set for
trial, as afant vs. Informed and be-
leves and therefore alleges, his coun-
sci for the purpose Of subpocnaing
said Shaughnessey for said trial made
an inquiry to ascertain his wherS-
abouts and as ailiant Is informed and
therefore alleges they learned that
said Shaughnessey was out Of the
state, and had left the state immediate
~ before said case was set for trial
That neither ailiant nor his counsel
was able TO find said Shaughnessy, but
the information which they received
upon making dlligent investigation 20
ascertain where he was and when he
would return was to the effect that
he would return to the state OF Utah
before the 18th OF February
1902 afrant further alleges
that he has not been able to
ascertain where said Shaughnessy
is. but he AYERS that said Shaughnessy
IS not within the State OF Utah. From
information In the newspapers recently
received within the past week, atllant
believes that said Shaughnessy Il eth
or In the city Of New York or IN the
city Of Washington, y, c., and further
alleges that since said case was set for
trial II has been impossible for him to
procure the deposition OF said Shaugh-
messy Afiiant further alleges that be-
fore said case was set f0r trial ne was
informed that said Shaughnessy would
be IN the state at the time for said trial
and aiIlant had no information which
led him to believe that said Shaugh-
messy would be absent from home when
said case wac called for trial
Afflant further alleges that said
Shaughnessy Is material. nec-
essary and important witness
in his behalf upon said trial and as
afiant Is Informed and believes and
therefore alleges some Of the facts
within the knowledge Of said Shaugh-
messy are not within the knowledge OF
other parties and he cannot prove the
same by any other person save said
Shaughnessy Afiiant Is informed and