Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-02-01
Indictment Set Aside Because
Names of Witnesses Were
Not Specified
DEFENSE WINS FIRST ROUND
Motion to Direct VereIict Is Sustained
But Court Holds Weaver to Grand
Jury for Resubmission Of Case-De-
fendant's Motion and Judge Al
brooks Ruling.
Special to mes-Republican.

| Eldora, Feb. 1.-As announced In a
special dispatch to the Times Republic
can Saturday the case of state of Iowa
VS.. Walter l.. Weaver was not allowed
to go to the jury, but the case did not
end exactly as was expected for the
reason that, while Judge Albrook did
not feel that he could allow the case
to go to the jury as presented, neither
did he feel that the defendant should
be allowed to go free and when he
saw that the case was lost and could
Indictment and the evidence as Of
fered he quickly turned about and or
dered the case resubmitted to the
grand jury.
Under the order of resubmission
Weaver is still held under $4,000 bond
and the case stands Just where 1t did
when the forgery was discovered and
Weaver located, except that at the
present time the county attorney has
the case with the defendant under
bonds to the next term of court.
In the history of court proceedings
In Hardin county no case was ever
harder fought; nothing was conceded
and every technically known to able
lawyers was taken advantage of.
Messrs. Ward and Williams fought
hard for the state. AS soon as the
states evidence was all in, the attor-
fnr lnfa Inv ut ba
states breastworks the following mo-
ton:
Motion to Direct Verdict.
"The defendant now moves the court
to strike from the record the testi-
mony Of the witness, Zel Mynard, for
the reason that as the record stands,
the testimony is incompetent, immater-
ial and irrelevant; and for the reason
that the testimony does not purport to
go to the genuineness of the signature
of either HI. Fl. Maynard or c. A. May
nard to the mortgage identified as
exhibit A, nor to the genuineness Of
the signatures upon the note exhibit
b; and as not tending to prove any
allegation OF the Indictment in
this case.
Second. The defendant moves the
court that the testimony of. the witt
ness, Carrie Niles, be stricken from the
record for the same reasons, and on the
same grounds urged in the motion
made to strike the testimony Of the
witness Zell Mynard.
"The defendant also moves the court
that a verdict be directed in his favor,
and that the defendant be discharged,
for the following reasons:
"First. That there is no testimony
in this case from which it can be
found that H. II. Maynard and Mrs. G.
A. Maynard did not in fact. execute
the mortgage exhibit A, as offered in
evidence in this case.
Second That there is no evidence
from which it can be found that the
mortgage, set out in the indictment
and identified as exhibit A, is a forgery
in fact.
Third. There is no evidence in this
case showing that the defendant knew
that the mortgage set out in the in
dictment, and identified as exhibit A
by the witnesses, was forgery.
Fourth. And because the state has
failed to show that the signatures at
tached to the mortgage, as set out in
the Indictment, and identified by the
witnesses as exhibit A, were not signed
by, and with the authority, of the
mortgagor named in the said mort
gage.
Fifth. The state has wholly failed
to produce competent evidence of the
alleged false and fraudulent character
of the written instrument set out in
the Indictment
Sixth Because the state has
wholly failed TO show that the sigma
lures upon the said mortgage, if not
written by the persons whose names
there appear were not written by some
other person having authority so to do.
Seventh. That there is a fatal var
lance between the allegations made in
the indictment, and the evidence Of
fered in support thereof, in that the
indictment charges the writing to have
been subscribed by false and forged
signatures of H. II. Maynard and C. A.
Maynard, while the evidence produced
is solely to the effect that the said
signatures are not the genuine sigma
lures Of other persons who are neither
named nor mentioned in the said in
dictnent.
Eighth. For the reason that the in
dictment upon which the defendant is
being held charges no offense against
the laws of the state of Iowa.
Ninth. And because the indict-
ment does not allege or contain a
statement of facts constituting the of
tense sought to be charged as required
by section $3.50 of the code.
tenth. The Indictment is not df-
rect or certain as regards the partfcu-
lar circumstances of the offense sought
to be charged, as required by the laws
Of the state of Iowa.
Eleventh The Indictment does not
fully and fairly inform the defendant
Of the accusation made against him,
as required by Sec. 10, of, Art, l, of the
constitution of the state of Iowa.
Twelfth. The Indictment does not
state facts to show a complete offense
of uttering and passing forged paper,
in that it does not state how or to
whom it was uttered and passed.
"Thirteenth. The Indictment does
not state the particular circumstance
necessary to complete offense of ut
tering and passing forged paper. but
states only conclusions OF law drawn
by the pleader from facts not disclosed
CT charged in the. indictment. thus
Continued on Page Five.)