The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-10
MIR. DENT WAS DISAPPOINTED Speaks of Outcome of the CaffeY Cases. THEY WERE MOL PRoSsED Solicitor Spoke of Failure to Con
 vict Negre. Cas. Asasnst Jehn Yanr Was ArE.ed on Demurrers. But Went
 over Until To-
 aay.

The cases remaining in the City Court against Dr.. Frank Caffey, the negro physician. were yesterday dismissed.
 Arguments on demurrers to the in- dictment returned by the last grand jury in the case against John Yuns, for c violation of the 9 o'clock closing law recently enacted by the State Leg isiature occupied the entire attention of the criminal division of the City Court yesterday morning.
 Attorneys for Mir. Yung claimed in their demurrer against the indictment that the o'clock closing law was un- constitutional both with regard to the State laws and also the United States laws. Thts phase of the question was argued by attorneys before Judge w. H Thomas for some time. the Judge finally everything the demurrer.
 There were other cases on the docket and by consent of attorneys in con- ference. the case was continued until this morning at s:s0 o'clock. the case to be called upon the opening of the court.
 regard to MT. Yung's case. Solicitor Dent announced that the other cases against the negro physician. pr. Frank Caffey, would be mol pressed. Mir. Dent stated to the court at some length his reasons for such an action. He said:
 with reference to the first case against Caffey, I have to say that this ia case in which he Is charged with embezzling ring, or receiving stolen property He has been once tried for this and a mistrial resulted. Since then the main witness has left the ju- risdictiop of the court and has been gone for number of years. have been unable to find q sipgie witness who remembers the testimony on the former trial of this witness who is now out of the Jurisdiction of the court. can remember 1t myself, but do not think should be a witness and prose- cutting attorney at the same time. but in addition to this will not be able to show that the witness has perma- nently left the State. Q predicate which would have to establish before Icould introduce evidence of his former testi- mony.
 ''The case having been on the docket for something like four years. and there being no prospect of procuring the fss- tiInony on another trial, I ask your honor to enter mol prosse in this case. regret very much to do this for am sure that the defendant Is guilty.
 As 10 the abortion cases, there are two left. Tn one case the witness ran away from the State just after appear ing before the grand jury and has new
 
 has practically been tried before q jury at the last term of court, when Caffey was tried for murder.
 Several of the jury which tried Caf- fey at the former Aerm of the court. told me they thought the defendant was guilty of an abortion, but did not think he was guilty of murder, and hence voted to acquit him.
 Under these circumstances, gave another jury, upon practically the same, evidence, an opportunity to convict the defendant simply for abortion. That jury declined to convict the defendant. So have given two juries every pp- portunity which Ia possible to return a verdict by which the defendant could be punished.
 T would n5t be frank If denied that the results of these trials have been a keen disappointment to me, but having produced the best case which I could possibly get and having se- Iected jurors In whom had confidence. and each of them having returned e verdict of not guilty, I think mol