The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1906-06-02

| Caldwell Thursday morning at ten
O'Clock. A large crowd had gathered
in the court room long before Judge
Smith entered. The defendants,
Messrs. Meyer, Haywood and Petit
bone and their attorneys, Messrs.
barrow, Richardson, Nugent and Mil
Ter, Mrs. Meyer, and Mrs. Pettibone,
Attorneys Borah, Hawley, Van Duyn
and Stone were present The crowd
seemed very much Interested, but
was quiet and attentive.
At ten o'clock Court was opened
and the case Of the State OF Idaho
VS.. Meyer, Pettibone. Haywood and
Simpkins was Immediately called.
Judge Smith said that the attorneys
for the prosecution had filed motion
for the continuance of the cause, bas-
ing the same on the fact that the de-
PENDANTS had pending in the supreme
court of the United States habeas
corpus proceedings, and that under
section 766 of the Revised Statutes
ings in the trial court.
The court stated that it had care
fully considered the matter and the
authorities cited by the prosecution,
and much as he regretted being
obliged to reach this conclusion, he
had decided to grant the application,
no h.
Mr.. Richardson for the defense asked
that an exception be allowed to the
ruling of the court, which was done.
Attorney Nugent called up the mo-
tons filed for change of judge and
change of venue, and asked that the
record show that the motions were in
behalf of defendants Haywood, Meyer
and Pettibone, the attorneys for the
defense not geing advised whether or
not Simpkins had any objections to
either the judge or place of trial.
The record was made accarding to
The recod was made according to
the suggestion.
Mr.. Richardson stated to the court
that the habeas corpus proceedings
had been set for hearing in the SUI
preme court of the United States on
October 8, at which time the same
would be argued and submitted. 1t
was his experience that from three
to four months elapsed after a case
was submitted before an opinion was
handed down, so that it would be
six moths or more before the district
court of Canyon county could proceed.
He therefore renewed the application
for bail on behalf of the defendants,
stating that under the circumstances
it was hardship not contemplated by
the statutes to keep these men i'm
prisoned when their appearance
could be assured by a bond in any
amount the court might see fit to
make.
In resisting the application Mr..
Borah declared that the statutes re-
ferred to by Mr.. Richardson did not
apply to the present conditions. The
state was not at fault that the trial !
could not proceed at this time. 1t
was within the power of the defense,
II they were sincere in their demands |
for an immediate trial, to dismiss
the appeal in the habeas corpus case,
which would thus clear the way for |
a speedy trial
After discussing the matter Judge |
Smith said he would follow the |
course laid down in a well consider |
ed opinion by the supreme court of
in case similar to the
one at bar, and the application for
bail would be denied. to which an
was asked by the defense,
and the same was allowed
Judge Smith annnuncedthat in all
probability the present term of court
would not adjourn sine die, but that
the same would remain open as some
thing might arise at any time to re- |
quire action on the part of the court, |
and If possible try the case under con-
As to the motions filed