The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-08
YOUNG CASE In COURT
MOTION MADE TO oUASH THE
INDICTMENT.
Trial of Former Cashier Of Eufaula
National Bank Comes Up in
Federal Court-Much
Legal Sparring.

The hearing and rulings on motions to
quash the indictment, demurrers and mo-
items to strike, occupied the first day Of
the trial of Edward b. Young. former
cashier of the Eufaula National Bank, In
the United States Court yesterday.
The Indictment charges Colonel Young
with violating the Revised Statues relat-
ing to banking.
The case was called at 10 o'clock, Judge
Thomas G. Jones on the bench. Colonel
Young occupied a seat with his counsel.
directly in front of the clerks desk. He
sat throughout all of the lengthy legal
arguments.
The jury was discharged until today,
and 1t is altogether probable that their
services will not be needed until tomor-
row, on account Of the purely legal phase
of the case as 1t now stands.
The defense opened the case with a mo-
ton to quash the indictment, on the
grounds of misjoinders in the indictment,
erasures and interlineations, and prolix
In the counts, calculated to embarrass the
defense,
To this motion the Government filed a
motion to strike the motion to quash,
which was overruled.
The question then required to the mo-
ton to quash, which, after lengthy argu-
ments by counsel, was overruled by the
court. Special stress was laid by the de-
Tense on the motion to quash on the
ground of the misjoinder. The attorneys
held that two. separate offenses were
charged in this indictment. thereby caus-
ing 1t to be null and void.
Judge Jones's Oral Opinion.
In overruling the motion to quash,
Judge Jones. after discussing the au-
thorities cited gave an oral opinion, He
said the law permitted the joinder in one
Indictment of separate offences, IL they
were of the same kind, shown by the
same sort of evidence, and subject to the
same punishment, and that II was not
necessarily, as matter of law, a good
ground for quashing an Indictment: that
1t charged two or more crimes; but that it
always vested with the conscience Of the
court, in its discretion, to quash the In
dictment or particular counts, or to re-
quire the prosecution to elect on which
offences 1t would proceed and nolle pross
as to the rest; that the object of the rule
" as to prevent confusion and embarrass-
ment to the accused in making his de-
fence. and to avoid the effect of proof OF
one offence, entering into the minds OF
the jury, and perhaps turning their YER
dict as to another offence, of which,
without the proof as to such other sepa-
rate offence there might be an acquittal.
He remarked that the Government was
not at fault for Joining all the offences
upon which 1t sought conviction In one
Indictment and putting the responsibility
on the court of determining how far 1t
would be proper In the interests of JUS
tice to try more than one of the offences
In one indictment on the same trial. The
court would take that responsibility, he
said.
baP a,.A
per the accused here" said Judge Jones,
'if he was put on trial on all the counts
in this lengthy indictment, and required
him to offer and meet proof on each Of
the several charges. The effect Of proof
as to one kind of offence might turn the
scale on the trial of the other and diff
ferent offence"
The court, he SAID could not concur
with counsel for defence that the defend
ant should not be put on trial for but one
offence in this indictment. The court
thought it would be doing fair justice to
the defendant and the public In allowing
,the defendant to be put on trial on more
than enc charge, where they were of the
SEINE nature, proved by the same evil
dence, and punished in the same way. and
done I'm the conduct of the same busi-
ness; but the court did not think II right
to put the defendant on trial at the same
time for those offences, and also for other
offences which required different means
to commite and different kinds of proof.
Hence 1t would require the Government
to elect whether 1T would prosecute on
the counts for making false reports of
the condition of the bank, or on those
counts charging abstraction or CONVEX
sion of the funds Of the bank, at differ
ent times. Those counts abandoned TO
be nolle pressed which would not AFFECT
the right of the Government to bring them
forward on another indictment.
The attorneys for the Government ask
ed time to consult as to which counts
they would elect to rely on, until to-
morrow morning. and the court accord