The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-29
SHEETS SCORES
ANOTHER POINT
Judge Armstrong Refuses to
Permit Filing of New Con-
spiracy Information.
COUNTY OFFICIALS GO
UP AGAINST 1T AGAIN
Court Declines to Involve State
in Costly and Futile
Trial.

Inc prosecutors VI Initl VI L 'iiNN
George A. Sheets received another
short-arm iab Tuesday, when Judge
Armstrong in the District court denied
the motion of District Attorney T. G.
Loofbourow that the court order an
other information fled III lieu Of the
one that Judge Armstrong quashed
several weeks ago. Even the awesome
presence of Attorney General M. A.
Breeden, as associate counsel for the
State, failed TO deter the court from
rendering this decision, albeit Major
Breeden had been directed by Gov
ernor Cutler 10 be present and cas-
sist'' the district attorney.
The effect of Judge Armstrong de-
cision is to throw the case out of the
District court entirely, and to put 1t
up to County Attorney Willard Han
son to start another prosecution, charg~
ing Chief Sheets directly with fcl
ony, if he wants TO prosecute him at
all. This proceeding must be started
before a committing magistrate, and
the chief must be given another pre-
liminary examination.
Judge Armstrong; Decision.
In everruling the motion, Judge
Armstrong pointed out that District
Attorney Loofbourow sought to file an
information charging Chief Sheets with
criminal conspiracy. which was the
charge in the information which was
quashed. That information was
quAshed because, while it alleged the
commission of q misdemeanor-crim-
inal conspiracy-it set out overt acts
which constituted felonies The court
held in its original ruling that the
chief could not be charged with a mis-
demeanor and tried for acts which con-
stituted felonies.
In denying the motion for q new in
formation Tuesday, Judge Armstrong
pointed out that while the allegation OF
the overt acts set forth in the first in
formation might be omitted from the
second, the proof would probably be
the same, with the result that, If a
new misdemeauor information were
fled, the court would probably have to
dismiss the case after the proof Of
felony was adduced, because of that
variance in the informa tion and the
proof which the law forbids.
Case Is Argued.
Mr.. Loofbourow opened the argu-
ment on the motion, and contended
briefly that the court under the stat
ute had the right to order a new infor
nation filed when the first one had
been quashed because of defect in 1T.
Captain f. A. Wedgwood, of Thur
man. Wedgwood 6 Irvine. appeared for
Chief Sheets in opposition 10 the mo-
ton Captain Wedgwood raised sew
eral points of objection. He pointed
out first that Mr.. Loofbourow had ad-
mitted that there was no precedent un-
der the Utah statute for the step
which the court was being asked to
take. He also pointed out that while
the new information, in all probabili
ty. would eliminate the allegations of
felonles, testimony TO prove felonies
would undoubtedly be adduced in sup,
port of the misdemeanor charge, and
that the result would be the same in
the end; the whole facts would come
out on trial, with the result that the
court, under its ruling quashing the
first information, would be forced to
dismiss the second one
Captain Wedgwood also cited several
Utah decisions in civil cases-there be.
ing no precedents in criminal cases
which he held prevented the court
from making the order prayed for He
held that the object sought could only
be attained by fling new complaint
in the lower court
Seek to Shirk Burden.
Captain Wedgwood also pointed out
that, II new information could he
filed at all, it could be done by the
prosecution without an order of court
as well as with it. He emphasized the
fact that the prosecution was seeking
10 shift the responsibility for filing
new information from its own shoul-
ders TO the shoulders of the court. bv
asking the court to make the order di
rectlng that the information be filed.
If the new information should be
filed, Captain Wedgwood pointed out.
h.
dismiss the case because of variance
In the proof after jury had been EN-.
Paneled and large number Of wit
nesses sworn, the State would be in
volved In a needless expenditure of
thousands of dollars.
In conclusion Captain Wedgwood
urged that the evidence taken at the
preliminary examination showed that
CHIEF Sheets, if guilty of any offense
at all, was guilty of felony. and that
II he were TO be tried at all he should
be tried for felony
Judge Armstrong's Remarks.
In ruling on the case Judge Arm.
strong said:
So far as looking into the testi.
mony IN the lower court Is concerned.
the court has not been informed as TO
lhe details or facts upon which this
information is based. There are no
other facts before the court, and the
court has not been Informed at this
hearing of any additional facts or cir
cumstances; hence the court wonld
have to consider the casc from exactly
the same point OF view as at the other
hearing There has been no other ad
ditlonal information given to the court.
This is bald request, and the
court VIII not make an order permit.
ting the district attorney to file the
same kind of an information which it
has quashed, There is no request. no
suggestion; before the court that any
other kind of an information will be
filed The court has given every an.
portunity for suggestion ms TO what
kind Of an information the district at
torney desires to file. If it is to be
just tins same matter, this court by
It's order would not permit il by sim
DIV The elimination Of Il