Weekly journal-miner., 1909-12-01

| the 1ndlctment or I. G. NOIIls TUT
 bribing Fred Sattes, a member of the board, to vote for Talbot. H. D. Ross, one of the leading counsel
 for Storm, was appointed by Talbot as his assistant. The cases against
 Storm were then permitted to drag, Morrison, special prosecutor, declining to be associated with the proseeu- tion after the appointment of Tal- | bot.
 Morrison Was Selected.
 In the fall of that same year, Nor
 rison was forced to accept the nomi-
 nation for district attorney, the main
 object being upon his election to con- tinue the prosecution of Storm. Nor
 rison was elected in November, 1906.
 In the last days of Talbot term of
 office, counsel for Storm moved 10
 dismiss the eases against Storm for
 want of prosecution, but the record showed that the cases had been stand ing on motions in behalf of the de-
 fendant to quash the indictments.
 alleging partiality on the part of the
 grand jurors who found the hdict-
 ments.
 On the first of January, 1907, Nor
 rison took office as district attorney
 and on that day served counsel for
 Storm with notice that he would call
 up for dismissal the motions to quash
 the indictments. Upon this being pressed the motions to dismiss the in-
 dictments were withdrawn and one of ] the thousand dollar indictments was
 set down for trial at the May term.
 In the trial of the case J. C. Forest
 was assistant under Morrison, and
 E. s. Clark continued to aid in the
 prosecution. The grand jury found
 Storm not guilty on this indictment. The next morning after this verdict
 was returned, the last indictment was
 on motion of the district attorney
 set for trial in the month of June,
 and on this trial the jury found
 Storm guilty.
 Bitterly Contested.
 Motion for new trial was denied,
 an appeal was taken to the Supreme
 Court of the Territory by Storm, his
 bail being fixed in the sum of $7500 which he gave, and in the early part of 1908 the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and , sustained the verdict and judgment ] Motion for rehearing was filed, Frank Cox being then brought into the case , as additional counsel for Storm, and in the fall of 1908 the Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing. Then for the first time in the his f tory of criminal cases under the Ter ' ritOriA law, a writ of error wa. s granted by the Supreme Court to tho l United States Court of Appeals fol ! the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco ? A new bond in the sum of $S000 wa. t given by Storm. This writ of erroI q was secured for Storm by A. c. Bake l and Alfred Franklin. and in May t 1909. the writ of error was argued ' at San Francisco by Frank Cox an, ? San Francisco lawyer for Storm I and by Clark and Morrison for tn ? Territory. On the I7th of May, 1909 k the Circuit Court of Appeals decide, s that it had jurisdiction in this clas e of cases, but affirmed the decision O n the Supreme Court of Arizona, an, f mandate was issued to, the latte e court, and in the early part of thi n month the Supreme Court sitting a f Phoenix ordered the issuance of e mandate to the District Court i it which the case was originally trie
 directing the judge of the court t d make such orders as would carr r. into execution the judgment of cor l. viction and sentence entered in June
 1907, against the defendant.
 ,. Yesterday morning the defendan t. appeared with his counsel, Colont D. J. F. Wilson, and Clark and Morr g son appeared for the Territory, an C. an order was entered by the Cou ct directing that the four years impri pr onment should begin with the dat n, of the order, and directing the she 70 if to take the defendant into GU lg tody and deliver him forthwith ,n the proper custodian of the Ter of torial prison at Florence.
 It thus appears that after fy ,d years from the date when the robber to was committed the defaulting count re treasurer was finally brought to ju h. tice and delivered into the. hands ( H. the sheriff for confinement in tl .y penitentiar7.