Omaha daily bee., 1906-01-11
WARE CASE AT LAST OPENS
Attorney Nshsrey Attacks the Indictment
a. Being Fatally Defectiv.
SAYS AcounTAL WOULD NOT END MATTER
Special Attorney Rush for the Gov
eminent Insists the Indictment is
Good and that Clerical Errors
DO Not Count.

Not since the arguments were submitted
in the case Of exhibited states Senator
Dietrich two years ago has the United
states court room in the postofice building
held as large a crowd as was assembled
tbcre "wednesday afternoon to witness the
opening OF the case of the United states
against Rev. George G Ware ct al. for
conspiracy in seeking to defraud the United
states Of title to certain public lands in
Hooker and Thomas counties, Nebraska, in
what is known as the L. B. l. land fraud
CAGE
The case was originally set for bearing
tuesday January 2, but was later continued
to January 3. However, owing to the fact
that r. J. Mahoney, the leading attorney
for the defense. was engaged in the trial
OF case in the state courts. 1t was not
until D. m. Wednesday that he was able
TO he present to represent the interests Of
his client. The proceedings of Wednesday
afternoon were the arguments on the mo-
ton to a,Iash the Indictment against Rev.
Mr. Ware on various technical grounds.
Mr. Ware was a listener. Mr.. Mahoney' $
associate attorney in the case is Henry
rawley of Deadwood.
Mr. Mahoney began his argument
promptly at . o'clock He said that the mo-
ton to auash applied TO both indictments
against his client but there is practically
hut one case. lie said. in. the event of the
motion to quash being overruled he would
at once submit demurrer, but without
argument as the demurrer would cover
identlcaIly the same grounds as the motion
to qiash.
Attack on Indictments.
Mr.. Mahoney's argument was upon the
insufficiency and Indebtedness of the in
dictments. Ono of these returned on
November "A and the other on November
Is. * ...... .....
Tho Indictment of November "a alleges
in the fourth and fifth counts that certain
Of the lands described are located in range
"a, township q. in Hooker county" said
Mr.. Mahoncy. whereas the fact is range
q is located in Blaine county sixty miles
east OF Hooker county. and no part of range
20 is in Hooker county ut all. In one of the
counts 1t is also alleged that the conspiracy
was entered into March 10. 1902, or more
than three years before the indictment was
returned. This leaves us uncertain as to
the date when the alleged offense was COM
mitted. and this count Is the only allega-
ton of a wrong being committed. I'm this
Indictment
The remainder of Mr.. Mahoneys argyll
ment related to the insufficiency of the
Indictments, in that they did not 60 into
particulars, and because of this INSULT
cheney and vagueness the defendants were
not sufficiently informed OF the charge
against them. He held that the acts and
iutents OF the accused must be fully set
forth in the indictments, but nothing OF
this character was shown. He said
when an agreement is alleged setting
forth a crime or conspiracy In an indict-
ment. 1t should show what the accused in.
tended to do, not what they accomplished
The indictment should show every clement
Of the offense endeavored to be charged
verdict of not guilty under an indictment
such as this would not prevent re-tria
under the same Indictment, and the mum.
Der OF trials that might be brought would
only be limited by the ingenuity OF man."