Arizona republican., 1906-11-28

| guilty to the charge, Justice Johnstone ! fixing 10 o'clock this morning as tho ! hour for sentence. Like all incidents 1 of the kind the story is a two-sided I one, but the district attorney says hC
 has ample evidence to prove the l charge.
 About midday of Nov. 17th Red
 wine arrested James without war
 rant alleging drunkenness and dis orderly conduct. and took him to the
 leriff's office From that time on, the facts as related by James. are that he
 did not know of anything he had done that would make him amenable to the law and told the officer so. He pro- | tested that he was guilty of no wrong doing but the constable insisted that
 he was and that there was another party interested. He told him he would have to appear in court Monday 10 make answer but that he would re- lease him then on $10 cash bail which he proceeded to give. James alleges that he then left the sheriff's office and Redwine followed him outside and told him to take a piece of good ad
 vice and clear out of the country. He l good reason why he should be ar rested.
 It is now claimed by Redwine that he arrested James il the belief that he was one of the two or three men who had stolen some clothing from Sam Seip and that he was desirous of holding him day or two until he could get the other party or parties interested. In the meantime, on Sun day, Constable Troops had arrested a man named Goldstein for the offense with which James was charged and on Monday he was convicted by Jus tice JOhnstOne. James then hunted up Redwine and told him this fact where upon he says Redwine informed him that his bail was already forfeited. James could not see it that way and went to the office of Justice Johnstone where he found there was no complaint against him and then to the office of Justice Burnett with the same result. Having told his story to Justice - nett the latter sent for Redwine and ordered him to refund the ten dollars to James, which he did and the latter entered upon his negotiations with the district attorney
 Concerning the charge against Red wine there seems to be nothing in the statutes making it more than a mis demeanor, and there is doubt in some quarters whether even that charge will hold. Section 401 of the statutes is as follows: If any clerk. justice of the peace, sheriff or constable who re- ceives any fine or forfeiture, refuses or neglects to pay over the same ac- cording to law. within thirty days after the receipt thereof. he is guilty of a misdemeanOr.,"'
 The limit Of penalty for a m.sde- meanor charge is $500 fine. or six months in jail. or both.
 In this instance the allo
 was committed on the 17th of Novem- Der and thirty days has not yet expir- ed, which would absolve Redwine, if it could be proved that he had a right to take the bail money in the first place. It is contended though that constable has no right to fix bond and accept bail. Nobody but the court can do that. and in this instance, afte accepting the bond. no charge was made against the man arrested. As no magistrate had authorized him to &C., cept a bond, or had any knowledge of the proceeding. it would appear that the constable had usurped the pre- rogative of the court.