The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-05-07

OF particulars IN the case OF W1llam IL.
Haywood, charged with the murder OF
former Governor Steunenberg. was
commenced before Judge Fremont
Wood at 1918 o'clock this morning. BY
direction of the court Haywood was
brought up from the county jail below
to attend the hearing on the motion.
Sheriff Shad Bodgin and two dcpu-
ties brought the noted prisoner into the
room and gave him a seat at the table
of his counsel. He was not handcuffe0
Senator BOrah represented the SITS te
and Messrs. Richardson and barrow the
prisoner. Mr.. Richardson ooened the
argument for the motion in the prison
ers behalf. Mr.. Richardson opened his
argument by reading the indictment Of
Haywood. Meyer, Pettibone. Orchard
and Simpkins. charged with the murder
OF Governor Steunenberg.
The motion for the bill Of particulars
recites the absence of the defendants
from Idaho at the time the crima was
contains no information that would
show the overt acts by which the state
hopes to prove the guilt of the accused.
Idaho Statutes Silent.
When counsel had finished reading
the motion Judge Wood Interrupted 10
say:
state has no statute providing for a bill
of particulars in such cases"
Il know that such is the case re-
piled Mr.. Richardson. and 1 also know
/ that the supreme court Of Idaho has
had its attention directed to the sub
ject but once. Such a motion. how
ever, as your honor well knows, al
ways directs itself to the sound dis
erection of the court
to the absence of Haywood from the
state at the time of the murder, and ar
gued that he was entitled to the in
| formation sought by the motion RE
quoted and explained a number of du-
! thorities in support of his contention
that under general rules of law the de-
/ PENDANTS are entitled to have particu-
I lars when indictments do not clearly set
them forth. The defendants being out
| Of the state at the time OF the crime,
! the prosecution must have evidence to
connect them by conspiracy or other
wise with the actual killing This evil
dence the defendants were entitled to
| have in order that they might prepare
to meet it.
Indictment Not Specific.
| Mr. Richardson declared that the in
dietment did not charge either a spe-
. v,
and did not show whether il was al
legged that the defendants had con-
spired to murder only Governor Steun-
/ enberg, or to murder number of per-
sons. The accused, he said was there
] fore left in the dark by the indictment.
The list of precedents and authorities
| quoted scores Of cases, including the
famous causes of Tilton vs.. Beecher.
the People of New York against Tweed
and the Chicago anarchist cases,
| Mr.. Richardson reviewed the only
Idaho precedent and contended as 10
the time of making the motion that it
was proper at any day before the trial.
The court asked if the case had not
been ready for trial for about q year
! Mr.. Richardson replied that nearly a
year ago the defense had demanded
/ trial.
tinuing. said that Haywood had jus,
drawn his attention to the fact that last
year the defense had been peremptorily
refused permission to file any pleading
because of the appeal - the supreme
court Of the United States pending.
Defendant Entitled to Know.
Mr.. Richardson cOntended that the
Indictment only showed that Governor
Steunenberg had been killed by a bomb
that Haywood was charged with con-
spring to have Steunenberg murdere
end that Haywood was charged Will
i Continued on Page 2.