Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1913-12-19
BILBO AND HOBBS
CHARGE CONSPIRACY
METHODS OF GRAND JURY OF WAR
rem COUNTY ATTACKED.
IN STATE CAPITAL
Doings of the Various Departments Of
the Government OF the Common
wealth Reported for Ben
eft of Our Readers.

A telegram from Vicksburg states that,
attacking the Indictment against Lieut.
Gov. Theodore G. Bilbo and Senator G.
A. Hobbs, charged with accepting and
soliciting a bride, the defense filed a
motion full of sensational allegations
when the case was called in the Warren
county circuit court.
When court adjourned 30 minutes ear
,lier than usual, Judge Mounger an
nounced that he would hear further ar
gument when the attorneys for the de-
tense will be heard. The motion was
heard in chambers.
After court adjourned an attorney for
the defense, said that Frederick Sullens,
editor, and Howard Williams, city editor
of the Jackson Evening News, had been
summoned. Whether they will be used
as witnesses will be determined later.
The motion charged hhat the grand
jury was empaneled by fraudulent means
and that the Indictment Is therefore void.
The defense, in effect, alleged that the
prosecution of Messrs. Bilbo and Hobbs
is the result of a "frame-up" and that
they are the victims Of a conspiracy.
The motion alleged among other things
as grounds for quashing The indictment
that the sheriff selected the grand jury
in direct violation of law, that only per-
sons whom the prosecution desired were
permitted to serve as grand jucors, and
that before the grand jury was empan-
eled the names of prospective jurors were
submitted to the district attorney. The
defense alleged and declared that it was
prepared to prove that the regular grand
jury, which was drawn from the jury
list in the manner prescribed by law,
was dismissed on the motion of w. j.
Vollor, an attorney, who was employed
by Gov. Brewer to prosecute the defend
ants. The defense asserted that it would
prove by witnesses that the new grand
jury was illegal and that the Indictment
is ineffective in law. The text of the
motion to quash follows:
Because the selection Of the grand
Jury returning the indictment herein by
the court was in direct violation of all
the laws governing the selection of such
jurors by the court, so that these defend
ants were denied such legal grand jury
as the law and constitution granted
them to inquire into these matters
charged against them and indict or ig-
more as such jury should elect, because
of this defendants charge that a fraud
in law has been perpetrated against
them in that they were denied the right
to be presented by a legal grand jury
and by way of specification defendants
show the following Irregularities and
prohibitions with reference to the EN-
paneling and selection of said jury:
Eat a former date, prior to the con-
vening of the court, 50 names were
drawn from the jury box provided for
that purpose for jurors to serve at and
during the first week of this tenn, out
of which, under the statute in the man
ner required by the statute, on the first
day of the term the judge was required
by the law and defendants have a right
to demand that a grand jury be selected.
Upon the first day of the court the judge
did not organize a jury in this manner
from such jurors, but illegally, without
authority, upon a verbal motion unsworn
to, dictated to the stenOgrapher Of the
court by an attorney who represented
that he presented said motion in behalf
of clients who were not named, sustained
said motion in part and overruled said
motion in part, OF at least the effect OF
the courts order amounted to this, in
that the motion was sustained in so far
as any of the jurors serving upon the
grand jury was concerned retained, how
ever, all of said jurors or so many as
was necessary to serve as petit jurors
for the week. The action of the court
in this respect being without authority
of law and illegal, defendants claim also
that an order issued by the court to the
sheriff instructed him to summon 35
names of electors to serve as a grand
jury was also illegal, and such jurors
when served and brought into court did
not constitute a legal grand jury and
these acts and orders of the court were
n effect a peremptory order purposely
rendered without sufficient excuse or
cause, denying to the defendants such
grand jury as the constitution guaran-
tees and the law provides.
The grand jury returning the indict-
ment herein was not drawn or ordered
by the Judge, either in conformity to the
statute nor were they selected in accord
ance with the ommon law.
These defendants charge that the in
dictment returned against them out of
right to be quashed by this court, because
FL 49,