The weekly herald. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 1906-19??, 1907-06-06
JURY FINDS
sfFassssas.HssssTHf
NOT. GUILTY
LOOphOIe In States Evidence
Gives Escape 10 Raglan In
Perjury Case

1872
(From Mondays Daily Panhandle.)
General speaking the difference
between tweedi6-dtm and tweedle-
dee Is a Joke, but the law which
takes all things seriously, can by the
laborlous process OF Its machinery,
make sharp difference In intent be-
tween the statements in this Justly
celebrated instance.
In the case OF the state versus e.
S. Raglan, Familiarity known as "Tnl-
by" for perjury, In regard to gamb-
ling In which the defendant was al
legged to have been participant, the
jury after seven or eight hours OF
wordy dlsputation, returned a verdict
Saturday night finding the defend
ant not guilty under the indictment
charged. According to the sworn
testimony OF "Trllby" and his friends
he was not engaged In the game OF
cards in the room back Of Sayage's
saloon on the ghtalleged in the In
dlctmeht and was not even In tho
room on that night, He was, accord
ing to the same line of Testimony,
sick In bed IN his room near the
saloon gal,
In direct contradiction OF this tes-
tlmony, District Attorney Bishop
swore that he watched the defend
ant and several other men play cards
in that room on that night. The at
torney watched the men through a
back window OF the room and past
lively Unidentified Raglan, Later in
company with officer Bolton. the vat
torney ret1fhed TO the room for tho
purpose 90 thtehingnfhe game in
progress. ialsfTst As ah9g got to the
door, however, Ragland came out
and efEOthdhFodnOH bolton. who
knew him personality spoke 20 him
and RaglanlhansWsfed return.
After IVdElaTg dehArttme the officers
concluded thatiit W6uld be best not
TO make the raid atdthat time as the
game was probably at an end and
the catch might be small In the
prosecution OF cases growing out of
a raid made few days later, Raglan
swore that he had not played cards
In tho room and that he had not
been In the room on that evening as
has been before related. Later the
district attorney had him indicted
for pejury intswearing that he was
not engaged In the game Of cards,
In summing up his case before the
Jury Saturday, Attorney Bishop Wig
orously stated to those gentlemen
that the only thing they had TO do
was to decide whether, he. the dis
trlct attorney, and officer Bolton
had lied, or whether the defendant
and his friends had been guilty Of
similar disregard for the facts, with
this embarrassing dilema confronting
them, the members of the jury de-
liberated TIL late IN the evening. Fin
ally the problem before the jury re-
solved Itself lnto3the question wheth-
er the defendant was being tried for
perjury IN the fact that no swore he
was not plRyingcards in.the room or
In the fact that he swore he was
not in the room on thatfevenlng.
The court relieved their perplexity on
this point by ruling that under the
indictment VS. stated conviction could
only come for proof that the defend
ant was engaged in game Of cards.
Then under the Indictment and from
the fact that the law does not recog-
nize the uncorroberated testimony OF
one man as sufficient for conviction,
the jury found the defendant not
guilty. Attorney. Bishops testimony
that he saw Raglan playing cards In
the room was not corrobersted by
any others witnessl His testimony,
however, that Raglan was in the
room on that night was amply cor
federated by officer Bolton.
Exit 'Ttilby~
r n, --~-r--