The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-10-15

testified to the fact that Mr.. Wenden-
| burg had been sworn twice, once as a
witness. and, secondly. that he would
faithfully and impartially advise the
grand jury. Witness could not re-
member whether or not Judge Scott
had suggested this move. He stated
that Mr.. Wendenburg was himself a
candidate for Office.
Mr.. F'ourqurean. foreman of the grand
| jury, stated in response to a question
from the court, that Mr.. Wcndenburg
was present at the time of taking the
vote, but that he said not a word. Re-
plying to defendants counsel. lie stated
that Mr.. Wendenburg remained in the
grand jury room at the request OF that
body; that he had told them he had n
right to do so; that he was present at
| the deliberations. and that he had
prompted them in their questions. Wit
ness said that he had become tired OF
asking so many questions. and he did
not think lie could have asked so many
ii Mr.. Wendenburs had not been pres
ent to prompt him. There was much
question as to whether Mr. Wendcn-
burg was present as o witness or in
| his official capacity as prosecuting at.
torney. Mr.. Fourqurean stated that Mr..
Wendenburg had furnished to them a
list of those who had paid taxes TO.
others, and that lie considered this to
be testimony. He said that he also
| looked on Mr.. Wendenburg as Com
|monwealth's attorney.
Mr.. HAYES and Messrs. Gross and
Beattie. all of the grand jury, testi-
| fed along the same line, showing that
Mr.. Wendenburg had been present
throughout the whole proceedings of
the grand jury. All We're agreed that
Mr.. Wendenburg had not in any way in
| fuenced them. The court decided again
against the motion to quash the in
dictment, and counsel for the defense
again noted an exception.
Filcs Demurrer.
Mr. tulton then announced that he
would tile demurrer to the -indlct-
ment. He declared that none of the
! alleged Illegal acts attributed to his
client were in violation of the Law
and that the indictment and every
count it contained were too incom-
plete and indefinite for them to be
sustained. He entered into long
argument. declaring that the indict-
nent referred to the Democratic pri-
mary held on September 5th. and to
/ the payment OF taxes made on May
4th Under the law he said, "the
Democratic party has no status. The
indictment does not allege what the
party is. whether religious or po-
tlitical BODY"
Continuing. he said that the primary
was not called until August 10th; that
the Indictment does not allege that
any primary was pending; that the
election could not have been held until
ordered. and that it was not called
/ taxes ls's
He said that the Indictment used
the term ''prsmaryy 'of which the
/ court could not take judicial notice.
until the results OF the primary are
made known. The primary. he stated
was called to name a candidate and no
one had been named. The Indictment
he continued. does not alleEe that
/ Henry c. Hechler was candidate; he
was a candidate to he named. which Is
4 a condition precedent to becoming q
candidate. His conclusion was. there
fore that Mr.. Hecbler had not vio-
lated the law. not having been a
/ candidate for office at the time of the
| payment of taxes.
In reply. Mr.. Smith. the prosecutor
I stated that the Democratic party was
coeval with the government itself, and
1 he thought the cpurt4could tax judi
\ cialS notice OF the fact. He said II
7 the primary had been ordered. for II
4 had been held on the only day OF
u which it could legallYfhave been hello
81 -Septelnber 5th
4 Futons argument it would show that
the Barksdale pure elections law Is
powerless to protect. lie could moi
agree with the fine points brought
out BY his opponent. and said thataM MT
Hechler was an avowed candidate fol
. office, and had been for along time.
, Mr.. Richardson, OF defendants coun.
sci, followed the prosecuting attorney
his argument emphasizing what his
predecessor for the defense had said.
Judge Harrison then adjourned court
until this morning at 10 O'clock, Wher
he will hand down his decision on the
demurrer.