Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1905-07-12
Texas Witness Was Not
Called Upon To
Testify
Justice Puts Defendant
Under Bond OF
$1,000

Preliminary hearing in the Sias
case, which after numerous postpone
ments had been set for yesterday, was
had before Justice Talbot in the dis
trict courtroom late in the afternoon,
and Sias was held to appear before
the grand jury in the sum of $1,000.
The first witness examined was NJ.
B. Hazeltine, of the Bank of Arizona,
who was requested by the defense to
produce a receipt tag of the bank,
showing that on May IA, Sias. for
Sheriff Roberts, deposited with that
concern the sum of s335.4O. The wit
ness showed duplicate tag, showing
such deposit, saying he could not tes
tify as to who had been the actual de-
positor, but admitted that Sias had
been in the habit of making deposits
for the sheriff. The prosecution grant
ed the duplicate to be correct, in place
of the original deposit slip, and the
same was introduced in evidence.
Attorney Hammond for the defend
ant, then stated that in view of exist
ing conditions in the hearing he would
put no more witnesses on the stand.
He made no reference to the presence
of J. NJ. Griswold, from Texas, who
was an attentive listener to all the pro-
ceedings. What evidence this wit
ness will have to offer, it seems, viii be
withheld until the case comes to trial.
Assistant Prosecutor Pattee next re7
called ex-Sheriff Roberts, and asked at
what time he saw Sias after the lat
teris return here under arrest. Rob-
erts explained when he had called upon
Sias at the county jail, and that Sias
had requested that he (Roberts) should
call there He then repeated the con
under sheriff, saying that Sias had
asked him how much money was found
to be short. Roberts replied that Sias
himself should know more about this
than anyone else. and that Sias had
replied that the day he left he had
calculated that his accounts were about
/ 81, 800 short Upon cross examination
ex-Sheriff Roberts said that he could
not give the exact amount of the
shortage, that he had never been able
to fully determine the amount that had
been misappropriated.
Attorney Hammond then addressed
the court, urging that there had been
no evidence introduced to show the
crime of embezzlement on the part Of
his clien-, that he had deposited at the
bank the sum shown on the bank book
on certain date, and that regardless
of an error in bookkeeping that might
possibly be shown, and despite the
allegation that Sias had made altera-
ton in an entry, there was no proof
adduced to show him guilty of the
crime charged He insisted that his
client should he entitled to every pos
sible legal chance, and that upon the
showing made there should be no fur
Their attempt made TO hold him.
Attorney Pattee for the prosecution
said but little as to the matter of guilt
taking the stand that any showing go
ing to prove shortage justified the
defendant being held, and briefly ex-
planned why it must follow that he
should have fun hearing before a
trial jury.
In but a few words the court decided
that the evidence fully justified him
holding the prisoner TO appear before
the grand jury. and after making this
statement asked the prosecution what
: was his opinion as to safe bond. At
torney Pattee explained that had STA,
, not escaped from town and avoided 9
r hearing in the first instance, the ques
ton Of amount of bond might be :
side issue; but that his action haC
shown that he might a second time un
dertake to avoid trial by leaving tn,
= country, and for this reason the
: amount of the bond should be sucl
as would guarantee the territory
' against any possible disappointment. II
urging that the bond should be more
than given by the Justice at first
he said that a man who would DELHI
erately thrown down his best friend
might throw down his bondsmen, and