The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1906-02-23
.UPHAM WINS THE FIRST ROUND
Judge Hole, After the Great Legal Battle Had
Ended, Decided That the Prosecutor Had Right
to Remain in the Jury Roon.-- .--0ther Points in
the Bank Case Are Yet to be DeCided.-.T0 bel
Resumed on Friday.

Single handed, Prosecuting Attor-
ney c. c. UphamN won in the common
pleas court on Monday, against the
biggest and most imposing array of
legal talent ever gathered together
at the Canton court house in one
argument, the first round Yin theI
fight Nwaged in the interests of the
indicted officials of the Canton State
bank, through pleas in abatement, to
prevent their trials on indictments
handed down by the last grand jury.
The battle, one of the most strenu-
Gus in the history of Stark county
courts, was fought before Judge Hole
of Columbiana county in court room
No. for more than four hours over
a motion made by Prosecutor Upham
to have stricken from the records the
pleas in abatement filed in behalf of
the indicted officials two weeks ago,
In these it was charged that Prosecu-
tor Upham used threats to coerce the
grand jury into finding indictments
against the accused bankers, after
jurors were being tampered with by
outside parties.
1t was charged by counsel for the
indicted bankers that Prosecutor Up
ham exceeded his authority, that he
had no right under the statutes to
instruct the jurors as to the finding of
an indictment and that by reason Of
= his alleged illegal acts the indict-
ments against the accused bank Off
cials were illegal and should De
quashed.
Judge Hole held that both Prosecut-
ing Attorney Upham and Roscoe c.
Mccullough his assistant, had a per-
feet right under the statutes to re-
main in the jury room during the time
the grand jurors were in session, de-
spite the contentious of counsel for
the defendants to the contrary. De-
cision was reserved by the court, how
ever, on the motion OF Prosecutor Up
ham to have the pleas of abatement
stricken from the records. Should the
motion be overruled it is probable
that a demurrer will later be filed.
In this the allegations in the pleas in
abatement will necessarily have TO be
admitted.
Throughout his argument Prosecu-
tor Upham contended that it would
be necessary for the defense to exam
ine the grand jury to find evidence,
IL there be any, to substantiate their
allegations of threats, intimidation
and coercion made against him in con-
nection with the finding of the in
dictments. He declared with much
emphasis that grand jurors cannot,
under the law, be called upon to i'm
peach their own indictments. During
his inexhaustible research he declar
ed he had been unable to find
single case where a grand juror was
permitted to tell what took place in
the grand jury room. All jurors were
sworn to secrecy, he maintained. This
secrecy was perpetual. Nor could he
find single case, he argued, where
through the conduct of a district or
prosecuting attorney
Prosecutor Upham's main conten-
tion, which was supported by the
court, was that it was not necessary
for him to withdraw from the jury
room during the deliberations of the
grand jury unless he chose so to do.
Counsel for the defense laid particu-
lar stress on the fact that Prosecutor
Upham was forced to withdraw from
the room and that he returned later,
interrupted the deliberations of the
Jurors and insisted on the finding of
the indictments which were returned
against the bank officials. He ar
gued that no charge was made against