Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-12-18
Motion to Release Other Defendants Over
ruled by Judge Munger
GENERAL DEMURRER UNDER AMUSEMENT
Attorney for Defense FronOunoeS Prosecu-
tiOn Bassless, Legally and Morally.
GOVERNMENT RESTS CASE EARLY IN DAY
Court OverruIes Motion of Defense
TO Compel Prosecution TO Elect
which Count IL Wants
Prosecution on.

The government rested, the name OF f. M
walcott was stricken from the indictment.
the court overruled motion to compel the
prosecution TO elect which count it would
demand conviction on, cverruled a motion
for the court to order a verdict Of acquit-
tai for each defendant the court continued
consideration OF a general demurrer by the
defense and Judge Critics Of counsel for
defense declared "the prosecution, no mat
ter by whom instituted is baseless under
law and moral principle these were the
vital developments and features In the
big land trial before Judge Munger yester-
day.
'The government rests
such was tre announcement of Special
United State District Attorney Rush at
II 81 a. IN. Monday, being the twenty-hfth
day Of the big land trial in which these
are the defendants: Bartlett Richards
president: viii @, Comstock, vice presi-
dent; Charles c. Jameson, secretary and
treasurer of the Nebraska Land and Feed
ing company; Thomas M. Huntington, pres
ident Of the Maverick Loan and Trust com
pany OF Gordon; Aquilla Tripett, agent for
Richards and Comstock, and +. NJ. Wal
colt, the alleged agent and attorney for
the Nebraska Land and Feeding company
at Valentine They are charged in q 500
page indictment of conspiracy to defraud
the government out OF title to a large
quantity OF public lands by means of fraud
ulent filings and entries and for conspiracy
to suborn perjury in these several matters.
Court OverruIes Critics.
At the beginning of the afternoon session
Judge Critics of counsel for the defense
moved that the government be required to
elect which Of the counts 1t would demand
conviction upon Judge Munger overruled
the motion
Judge Critics then read general demurrer
!, TO the Indictment and asked that verdict
of acquIttal be ordered for each ~ the
defendants on the ground that each Of the
counts charges the same general con-
spiracy, "and that the government has not
produced one particle OF proof OF con-
splracy. In count 81 OF the indictment the
government has failed completely to estab-
llsh proof OF forgery In the matter of the
declaratory statements and that the de-
fendant, +. NJ. Walcott, has not beer shown
IN any way to be connected with the al
legged conspiracy or forgery; that counts
81 to 81 charge the subornation of per-
Jury and that no proof has been produced
TO substantiate the allegation, and further.
that the alleged act of conspiracy cannot
be split up into several offenses as ap-
pears in the indictment, holding that this
conspiracy was entered into on June S'
1904"
Judge Critics cited several cases in sup
port of his contention and notapy one from
Wisconsin where the same eaeral features
enter as in the case at and whereby
a decision was rendered showing that an
agreement to lease the land part of the
conditions for money advanced for the
entry expense was not unlawful
overt Act Renewal of Plot.
The court held that the overt act wal
a renewal of the conspiracy and that i
was true a man cannot be punished more
than once for the same ofense. The cour
said.
"Tbe offense in the case at bar lies il
the agreement prior TO the accomplishment
OF the overt act. The motion is therefor'
overruled."
Mr.. Bronze of counsel for the defens
moved that the jury be instructed TO re
turn a verdict of not guilty from the fac
that the evidence is not sufficient in law
to warrant a conviction on any OF tn
counts and that this action was made 10
ana on behalf OF each OF the defendants
The court did not pass on this motion
nudge Critics then renewed his motol
that the name OF F. NJ. Walcott be strlckei
from the indictment, as no evidence ha'
been produced connecting him in any wa
with the conspiracy or alleged forgery.
Upon this motion Judge Munger said;
arhere has been but one witness VIII
has connected Mr.. Waleotts name in TN
matter and l must, for the present sus
tain the motion as TO the defendant, Wal
cott."
similar Motion for Others.
Judge Critics made similar motion a
20 the defendant, Bartlett Rleharos' WI
G. Comstock, Charles c. Jameson an
Aouila Triplett He then entered into
VrolonFed argument, sustained by numerou
a,,tborities bearing upon the various feat
,,res OF the case and the completely
&C. dafsnaabts In the conspiracy, as a
1eged An the indictment. on the subject {
~ nro,urement OF leases on the land frol
the entrymen, he said;
.grhe leases given do not operate as
,y,tiation OF the entry. The parties ente
tny the land supposed that they had
rISbt 10 make the leases II has been fr
,,ontlv shown that a mortgage given {
homestead prior to final proof was
ta,vfui transactioE and the mortaBage
1,t, Instance was equivalent TO a leRs
Srhese naortgages were gwen TO enable Il
entryrnen TO make Improvements. The i
terior department has Itself influenced q
sene-al opinion that gIazing the land vi
equivalent 10 cultivation and this presum
t,on has been let into the law by the
nertment itself. A lease Is not an allen
ton Of the land, particularly where
agreement has been made to sell the Lar
prior 10 entry. No law In the United Stat
prohibits this practice nor does It pr
nounce It a crime. Under these decisio
these DEFENDANTS are not guilty OF any {
gense and this prosecution, no matter
whom instituted, IS baseless under all ID
ana moral principle
Rash Against Motion.
Air Rush argued against the motion
Judgs Critics and said;
.'rhs allegation Of the indictment r
ati,g TO the conspiracy and in all It's poll
and counts has been abundantly sustain
BY the proofs submitted. The time
aoeuiring the title 70 the land has I
We arrived. The conspiracy was 70
Ccontinued on Second PageJ