The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-12-15

Judge Locke had been handed down,
Attorney George NJ Powell presented
a motion for bill of particulars.
The grounds set up as to why the
government should furnish the de-
PENDANT with bill Of particulars was
that the particulars OF the offenses
charged were unknown to the defend
ant, that no preliminary hearing on
some of the charges had been held,
that the pleadings of the government
were vague, indefinite and uncertain
and tended to embarTass the defend
ant in preparing his defense, and that
the defendant, by the denied motion
to quash and the demurrer which had
been overruled, had sought to gain
these desired particulars.
Judge Locke then asked Mr.. Powell
what particulars were desired by the
defendant.
What Was Wanted.
In reply Mr.. Powell pointed out
that there were two distinct charges
brought against Mr.. O'Hara, some of
the indictments charging peonage In
one form or another, and the others
charging carrying away with intent
to hold a slave.
In regard to the slavery" indict-
ments, counsel stated that the de-
PENDANT wished to know by whom
the poems had been held in peonage,
the names of those returning the al
legged poems to peonage, by what
means they had been held in con-
dition of peonage, by what means
they had been returned to a condition
of peonage, what was the debt for
which they had been held, and de-
scription, ETC., of the place of bust
ness and nature of the business at
Maytown and Buffalo Bluff.
Argument is Brief.
Mr. Powell, after the motions had
been presented, briefly argued them,
contending that all that had been
asked for were facts which the de-
PENDANT had the right to know, as,
in preparing his defense, justice de-
manded that he know fully the par
ticulars of the offense charged against
him in order that he might be fully
aware of Just what he had to meet.
Col. w. NJ. Toomer, referring again
to the question of Indebtedness,
pointed out that in the Clyatt case
the Indictment had not been chal-
lenged by the counsel for Clyatt. He
argued that the two essentials to
peOnage were the Indebtedness of the
alleged peon and involuntary service
to work out the debt.
Both Must Be Proven.
Should the defense prove, he con-
tended. that there had been no debt,
or that there had been no 1nvolun-
tary servitude, the defense would be
complete, as it would likewise be did
the government fail to make out
these two essentials. Therefore, he
argued. inasmuch as at least two or
the indictments did not even men,
ton Indebtedness, O'Hara had the
right to know what debt was charged,
to whom it was owed, etc, in order to
prepare his defense.
Assistant United States District At
torney Richard p Marks replied
briefly for the government, contend
ing that the indictments were sur
fciently particular in themselves to
put the defendant on notice OF what
he must prepare to meet.
Motion Is Denied.
When Mr.. Marks had concluded the
court ordered an informal recess I'M
til II o'clock.
AT noon the, court reconvened and
Judge Locke announced that, after
carefully considering the motion
made by counsel for the defendant,
he felt. that it should be denied, and
that the government would not be re-
ouired to furnish the defense with the
bill of. particulars as asked.