The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-03-10
HARRIS WILL
CONTINUE
FIGHT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MCGUIRE,
EFT AL, NOT ENDED.
District Attorney Expresses Intention
to Continue Prosecution Until
Justice Is Melted Out.

The case of the state of Utah
against B. ] Mcclure, John II. Bran
lett and John X. Garrett, in which the
defendants were charged with the
robbery of an old gentleman. Frank
Gof. at the Apex saloon on lower
! Twenty-ffth street. of $500, early In
the month of January, has travelled
the course of procedure in the prelim-
mary court and has had an inning in
the district court The case has at
hacted considerable attention on the
part of the people and the legal fra
! ternity because OF the many turns
that have marked in the tide of the
| proceedings.
The ruling Of the district court In
| the case yesterday Is considered a
| knockout blow to the prosecution and
that nothing further can be done in
the matter, but District Attorney Har-
rls states that this is not true. He
says the parties will be prosecuted to
the full extent Of the law and that
there will be no let-up in the proceed.
ings until justice has been meted out
The case was vigorously prosecuted
through the municipal court, the Judge
oil which acting as committing mag
istrate, the defendants being bound
over to await the action of the district
court which, under the statutes of the
state. has jurisdiction as trial court.
There was no hitch In the proceedings
until the case approached the district
court, when sudden setback to the
matter WAS experienced by virtue of
faulty information which had been
filed
Immediately after the defendants
had pleaded to the information, it was
discovered that the same was defec-
tive In that through a clerical er-
ror the time and the place Of the al
legged offense had not been stated
therein, defect which the district at
torney asked permission to supply by
amendment 10 the information. The
court, however. refused TO permit tho
amendment 10 the information, holding
that the omission could not be supplied
In that way, Thereupon. the district
information for the purpose of filing
new one, correctly stating the Of
fense The same was dismissed on
January 80. and the new information
filed Immediately thereafter, The
prosecution moved for a bench war.
rant to bring tho defendants into
court TO plead, which motion was de-
MED by the court on the grounds Of
lack Of authority to issue said war
rant The district attorney then ask
ed that date be set for the arraign
ment of the defendants and that they
be required 10 appear for that purpose
The matter has been before tho
court several times in one form OF the
other during the past month"; but was
never finally decided until yesterday,
when the court refused to grant the
motion for the arraignment of the de-
PENDANTS. and at the same time grant
ed the motion OF defendants attorney
to strike the information from the
files of the court. This leaves the
case exactly where it stood before the
information was filed, and as Judge
Howell stated in his decision. filed in
the case yesterday, that he would not
D1OCeeO luSl III ihC lHitttlt tuS
prosecution Will be compelled TO hold
another preliminary examination, un-
less It should be decided to commence
mandamus proceedings In the supreme
court to compel this court to proceed
with the case. Since the former pre-
liminary hearing, two of the star wit
nesses for the prosecution, left for
parts unknown, some mystery being
attached to their departure. so 1t Is
probable that the prosecution will take
the matter to the supreme court rather
than abandon the present case. as In
the trial of this case they can use the
testimony Of the absent witnesses.
which was given at the preliminary
examination and preserved in the stem
ographic report OF the proceedings
thereof.