The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-08
Haywood Is Refused a Bill OF
Particulars by Court.
The Trial Will Proceed on the
Date Previously Set.
WAIVED HIS RIGHT
Court Says 1t Was Lost WheI
Plea Was Made.
Defendants Council Notes Ex-
ceptiOn to the Ruling.

Boise. Idaho, May S.-The motion
for bill of particulars, filed by the
defense in the case of w. D. Haywood,
secretary and treasurer of the Western
Federation of Miners. charged with
the murder of former Governor Stuen-
enberg, has been denied by Judge
Fremont Wood.
Counsel for the defendant noted an
exception to Judge Woods ruling.
They then announced that they would
be ready for trial to proceed tomorrow
morning. Haywood was remanded to
the custody of the sheriff and court
was adjourned.
Other than the lawyers and news
paper writer's there was less than a
score of persons in the court room this
morning when Judge Wood announced
his decision in the matter of a bill of
particulars, filed by the defense in the
case of Haywood. the first of the West
ern Federation of Miners, to be called
for trial.
Haywood. clean shaven and alert,
was brought into the court room by
jailer and took his place beside his
counsel, Messrs. E. F. Richardson of
Denver and Clarence S. DarroW of
Chicago.
Judge Wood disposed of several mo-
tions in civil cases before coming to
the matter of the bill of particulars
under the Haywood indictment.
The special counsel for the state in
the trial of the miners were all pres
ent this morning for the first time,
James H. Hawley of Boise, senior
counsel, and one of the most promi-
nent criminal lawyers in the west. sat
beside United States Senator w. E.
Borah, with Public Prosecutor Vandin,
the third of the lawyers at the states
counsel table.
In deciding the motion, Judge Wood
said in part:
"An examination of the indictment
in this case discloses the fact that the
forth with great care and particularly
the time and place are specifically
set forth as we'll as the person upon
whom the assault was made, and the
specific means by which the blow
which produced death was struck. A
bill of particulars could not convey
any information to the defendant upon
these questions which he does not al
ready possess. The only question is
this: Assuming that the state must
prove conspiracy and that the defend-
ant was connected therewtth, Whlcn
cOnspiracv resulted in the death OF
Frank Stuenenberg is the defendant
entitled to the particularizat1on OF the
several acts or circumstances upon
which counsel for the prosecution rely
in order to connect the defendant with
such conspiracy? 1 do not think it
necessary to state at this time what
the court would do if this application
had been presented before plea TO tne @
Indictment or before the case was set
for trial. AS the court now views the
matter the defendant has waived ms
right to such bill of particulars not
only by pleading to the indictment,
but further by permitting the case TO
be set for trial without making such
application. The plea of not guilty
to the indictment herein was entered
as shown by the record on the zOtn
day of March. 1906.
"a further examination of the record
discloses the fact that after argument
by counsel on May 3, 1906, an order was
entered stating all proceedings in. this
case until the appeal in the matter OF
a habeas corpus in the United States
circuit court, district of Idaho, to the
supreme court of the Unlted States'
nears to have been taken in the case
until the March term, 1907. in canyon
county, when the defendants appllca-
ton for a change OF venue theretoIore
vas heard by the court and as re- |
suIt of said application this cause was |
on March 25. transferred from the dis
trict court of Canyon county to TINS /
county for trial. Immediately foIloW-
ing the ruling of the court upon appl1- |
cation for change of venue, counsel
for the defendants. in open court gave
notice that the defendants would 1e-
mand separate trials and it was also
stated that the defendants would be
1eadv for trial at such time as might |
he fixed by the court. At the opening
Of the April term of court in this coun- |
~ the defendant and his attorneys be-
i1S in court and consenting thereto,
the time for trial was fixed for May 3,
and 1 assume that preparations nave
been made therefor
saThis motion appears to nave been
fled in this court on April 20 The |
court has been in almost continuous
session since April l. when the cause |
was sent for trial. If. in the exercise
Of the sound legal discretion OF the |
court. the defendant is entitled to this |
hill Of particulars. he will also be en-
titled to a continuance OF the case, |
when the bill of particulars Is present
ed. upon making showing of necessity
for further time to meet the specif1ca-
lions contained in the bill. And while
the granting or refusing of a motion |
for a bill of particulars could not be
assigned as error, yet the refusal to
grant a continuance upon proper show
ing after the motion for a bill of par
ticuIars was allowed, would be assign
able as error. The state has evidently
been led to believe that the defendant
in this case was ready and prepared |
for trial Such have been the solemn
declarations of his counsel upon sew
eIal occasions, and / am clearly of the
opinion that it would now be an abuse
of discretion to grant the motion and
OF der the bill of particulars. which in
nv opinion has been repeatedly waived,
by pleading to the indictment. by re-
peated statements of readiness for trial |
Hx narp1itffnp the case 70 ia SET