Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1905-05-24

T. turned their verdict shortly after their evening meal The verdict was re- eeived about town with much surprise An appeal is likely to be taken, and it is not unlikely that further legal complications may arise as a result of the outcome ofthis case. Late last night unconirmed rumors were afioat to the effect that arrests may follow of certain persons indirectly connected with the indictment of Thomas.
 What might be termed bordering up- on the sensational, developed in the trial of the case of Yavapai county against Wm Thomas before Judge Sloan and a jury yesterday afternoon. During his address, Attorney R. Morri son. for the defendant, hinted at a conspiracy to injure his client, and op- enly denounced the hearing before the grand jury, which indicted Thomas, as an effort to make a scapegoat of the superintendent of the county hospital.
 Taking for his cue to a conspiracy charge a few words said by Attorney Samuel Pattee as to the trivial amount at issue. in the case, Attorney Morri- son said:
 ''Yes, it is but a small amount, but that is not in questiOn-it is prin- eiple of right and honesty. It is only too true that when there are thousands stolen it is apparently impossible to get q conviction. Then comes the re- fex action to arraign someone on similar charge on a small scale, so the reeeding wave of oDinion will swamp him, and thus do away with such dis agreeable and disastrous occurrences.
 The defending attorney then called attention to the witnesses before the grand jury, and asked why H. G. Ross, who was one of the important witnes- ses before that body, had not been call ed to tell his story before the trial iurv. Explaining that the testimony of other grand jury witnesses, which was brought before the trial jury, was not sufficient to justify an indictment. he asked why this witness, H. G. Ross. had not been called to tell openly 1 in court what he had dOubtlessly sworn to at the ''star chamber session. He then declared the prosecution did not dare to put this witness on the stand, as he could not have Sustained himself ! under rOss-eXaminauion. When he mentioned conspiracy to ruin his client, he courteously excluded the pro secutor and his assistant from any di- rect action not consistent with clean i legal procedure, but insisted that the | testimony furnished the grand jury upon which Thomas was indicted had not been brought out at the trial, and that such evidence as had been in troduced by the prosecution would not sustain the charge nor suffice for con viction.
 The case was called at the morning session, and after about two hours of careful inquiry, the following jurors were selected and empanelled to try the case:-Frank Heisler, R. l.. Stewart. l.. D. Bennett, !. A. Forbes, D. c. Rob inson, W. l.. ConnOr, J. P. Wilson, Edward Baer. E. J. Pascoe, G. E. Al stead, Robt. De Large and J. O. Carter. After brief statement of the ease, Clerk Robinson, of the board of super
 visors. was called to present dOeumen- tary evidence to show that the account in question in the sum of S31.15 had been presented by Thomas and paid m
 the regular manner. It was for the
 care of Refufa Durrama, a 16-year-
 old Mexican girl, who was first sent
 to the hospital for care, and eight days
 later was adjudged insane, and taker
 to the territorial asylum. Dy this evi
 dence and the records of Judge Hicks
 it was shown eonclusively that the | glrI had been sent to lhe dSHluhi Nioi'
 than 60 days prior to the time sh'
 was reported dismissed from tho
 county hospital CorrobOrative evi
 dence or more properly aeeumulativ' evidence in the form of two other simi
 lar charges made by Thomas and allow
 ed by the supervisors, was then intro dueed by the prosecution despite thu , objection. of the defense.
 Herman Hedt testified to havini , received a visit at mining camp dur
 ing the time his brother had been | charge at the county hospital. Upo eross-examination it developed his siel
 brother remained with him but on