The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-03-09
INQUIRE AND
BRAMLETT
FREE
MEN ACCUSED OF RoBslNG OLD
MAN NAMED GOFF.
Escape on a Technicality From tho
Mcshes Of the LaW-Decision
Given In District Court.

In district court this morning the
defendants motion to strike out the
information against B. j. Mcguire,
John X Garrett and r. E. Bramlett,
charged with robbing Frank Con- of
$3.50 and a gold watch. was granted
and the three men discharged from
custody
Goff was robbed several weeks ago
and charged these men with the crime.
They were arrested and, after an eX-
animation extending over several days
in municipal court. were bound over
to the district court and formal infor-
nation filed against them. The infor-
nation failed to state when OF where
the robbery occurred and on motion
of defendants counsel the trio were
dismissed. s
In the meantime a second informa-
tion had been filed, but this proved
equally fruitless and the men accused
OF the grave crime have succeeded in
obtaining their liberty through a tech
nical error of serious nature.
The Judge, in his decision said;
While the court Is convinced that
the conclusions arrived at in the fore
going are correct still even assuming
that they are not, still the right OF
the state to further proceed In this
action Is OF such a doubtful character
that 1t seems to the court il ought not
10 proceed further without determl-
nation thereof by our highest tribun-
al There are three defendants charg-
ed in the information in question here
IN, of u,hn
information filed demanded separate
trial. and might do so again, so that
IT would be necessary TO have three
trials consuming a great deal OF the
courts time, and before undertaking
them the court deems it proper that
such a procedure as is herein sought
to be INDUCED In should have the
sanction Of our highest tribunal, such
action on the part Of the trial court
being justified both for the sake OF the
defendants, who might be required un-
necessarily to undergo trial upon a
criminal charge, IL the filing OF this
information were not proper. and also
for the sake of economy to the state,
that il such procedure is held TO be
not justified by our ewn supreme court
and the state and the county should
not be put to the expense OF these
trials
There has been some question rails
ed as to the form Of the remedy which
the defendants have in this case. Our
supreme court has said that ordinar-
lily motion to quash the information
Is the most appropriate remedy where
3 failure to hold a preliminary exam
ination Is relied upon. estate VS..
Spencer. Is u. 1861. But it seems tc
the court that after all the form OF the
objection is timely, and that in this
case the consistent course for the de-
PENDANTS TO take is to do as they have
done, to move to strike the new infor-
nation from the files on the ground
that the action is ended and such in
formation has no place in the proceed
ings.
The motion of the defendants may
therefore be granted and of course the
motion of the district attorney for
their arraignment, as we'll as for the
fixing OF their bail must be denied,
there being no information upon
which to arraign them. In other words,
it would seem that the proper attl-
tude for the court Is to refuse to pro-
ceed in this cause further, owing to
the fact that 1t has been dismissed
and TO allow the state to secure re-
view of this refusal by a writ OF man
unte, or other appropriate remedy. 1t
is so ordered,