The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1907-08-29

The above were some of the fiery
statements made yesterday afternoon
during the trial of G. C. Carter and
Rose Hall on the charge of stealing
Mrs. S. d. Crump's diamonds and
also during the trial of Carter on
the charge of stealing aprons, hams
sugar, etc., from Schmittroth S res
taurant.
The proceedings were the warmest
heard in the local court, in long
time and as result disbarment pro-
ceedings are said to have been
threatened against District Attorney
Eddy and Attorney Zurich. Those
who are said to be interested in the
proposed action accuse the two at
torneys of working in conjunction in
criminal cases while they reply that
they are not law partners and that
they are anxious for steps to be TAX
en-, as they can easily prove their in
nocence of any such charges.
The charge against the two prison
ers was dropped upon motion of Dis
trict Attorney Eddy, Mr.. Crump, the
prosecuting witness, having request
ed him to do so
Thus the grand larceny charge was
a thing of the past as far as Carter
and Rose Hall were concerned. The
petty larceny case was next taken up
and jury quickly empaneled. There
was no evidence connecting the de-
fendant with the alleged theft of the
goods and Mr.. Schmittroth could not
state whether Carter took the aprons
The argument of Mr.. Zurich, who,
with Attorneys Devecmon and Nc
Fadden, represented Carter, was SEN
sational in the extreme. He sub
iected Judge Crump to severe
roasting. The jury was out only a
few minutes and returned verdict
of acquittal.
Judge Crump's Statement.
The following is the statement
filed with Justice Bush by Attorney
S. d. Crump:
"Ely, Nevada, Aug. 27, 1907.
"To the Justice Court of the First
Township:
"As complaining witness in the
case of the people against Carter and
his companion | decline to furthei
furnish evidence or to testify at this
time.
INV reason for this course is not
that there is any doubt OF their guilt
or that the evidence is. insufficient
but | am prompted to this action be-
cause of most remarkable and de-
plorable condition of affairs which
prevail in the trial of criminal cases
in this court.
81 find in this case, as in most OF
the so-called criminal trials in TINS
county, the same firm of lawyers rep
resenting both sides; the District At
torney prosecuting and his associate
and business partner defending.
''In twenty-five years. of practice
have never seen so fragrant and I'M
pudent violation of the law in this re
spect and never before knew of courts
permitting it.
'The statutes of this state in posi-
tive terms prohibit it. The provision
prohibiting this unlawful practice, !!
as follows:
"'No district attorney or partner
thereof, shall appear within his coun
ty as attorney in, or directly, or 1nd1
rectly aid, counsel or assist in the de
fense of any criminal action brough
or prosecuted during his term: no
in any civil action begun or prosecut
ed during his term, in behalf OF an!
person suing or sued by the state Of
any county thereof.
ga violation of this act snail D'
deemed a disdemeanor and punished
by a fine not less than two hundred
and fifty dollars and not more thai
one thousand dollars. And in add
ton the offender shall be disbarret
from practicing law in any of th'
courts of this state until restored b,
the Supreme Court of this state.
mot only is this statute constant
ly violated in this county, but thl
hideous practice violates a law high
err than any statute. 1t means tina
the trial of criminal cause is mer'
farce: That the conviction OF
criminal is rendered practically i'm
possible. 1t means much more thal
this, for, where lne legal assoclat
of the prosecuting officer, armed Wit
the secrets of that high office, ma
go from the very office where tn
criminal complaint has been prepare
to the jail and actually solicit an
obtain employment as counsel for on
charged with crime that innocen
men may thus be victimized an
made to suffer unjust punishment.
"What hope may an innocent ma