Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1913-01-09
TRIAL Of EPT|MG
BEGUN At MEMPHIS
AFTER ARGUMENT OVER
MOTIONS TO QUASH
INDICTMENTS.
ONE JUROR SELECTED
WILL COVER PRACTICALLY THE
SAME GROUND As TRIAL OF
sNEED FOR MURDER OF
YOUNGER BOYCE.
Special 70 Daily News.


MEMPHIS, Texas. Jan. S.--AfteF
a day OF arguments of various mo-
tions presented by the counsel for
the defendant. u. Il. Epting. the
trial itself may be said 10 have be-
gun with the examination OF the
special yeniremen In an attempt to
secure a jury
On the opening OF court this NOR
Ming action on defendants motion
Tor continuance was still under al
visement, and when states counsel
informed the court that they had re-
liable Information from the husband
OF the witness, Mrs. l.. A. Rogers. of
Dallas, Texas. upon whose absence
the defendants motion was mainly
predicated. that said witness would
be able TO attend court not later than
Monday. the court oyerruled the ap-
plication. Defendant excepting.
Thereupon the defendants coun-
sci presented a motion TO quash the
Indictment in said cause, the motion
being. In substance, that the first
count In the indictment charged no
Iffense against y. u. Epting, and
falls to show any presentment by
the grand jury OF any offense against
this defendant the same objections
we're urged against the second
count. also that IL was duplicitous In
that II sets out and charges facts
which would constitute this defend
ant both principal and an &c
complice. further that Il In vague.
uncertain and indefinite In not
charging the kind Of character of
the furniture. implements or apph-
ances furnished by this defendant TO
!. ". sneed; that the third count is
vague. uncertain and indefinite. and
mat II shows no presentment BY
grand jury OF any offense committed
by this defendant. and that II is du.
pllcltous In that II sets out facts.
which If true. would constitute this
defendant both a principal and an
accomplice To the fourth count is
urged III" objection that IL does not
charge this defendant with anv
knowledge OF the inten, on the part
OF Sneed 10 commit the offense of
murder az the time this defendant 4.
charged 10 have aided said Sneed in
me commission OF the offense. and
further that the same does not al
lege that the defendant had knowl-
edge OF the intent OF ! n. Sneed to
commit the offense OF murder when
TINS defendant aided said Sneed: nor
does the same allege that this de-
iehdant had any knowledge of the
unlawful intent on the part of the
said Sneed Ia commit any offense at
the time II is alleged that this do
i"ndant did the things and furnish
ed the appliances 10 assist Sneed as
charged To the fifth count also
objections were lodged of like char
act'r This motion. after an extend
ed argument, by counsel. was over
ruled. defendant excepting
The defendant next filed a mo-
ton 10 quash the special venire
drawn for the selection OF Jurors m
THIS case. wherein 1t is asserted that
they were not drawn according TO
law The court oyerruled this mo-
ton defendant excepting An am
ended motion was then filed bv de-
i"udaui asking that the special ven
ire b" ouash'd ou 'h, ground that
a' The time and during the drawing
of Pho special yrulro by the clerk
and H.- deputy thc district Judge.
Hon a Nahcrs. was not present
u th' court room an OF the time.
On This motion testimony was heard.
and several witnesses. among them
'H' district clerk. $ G. Alexander.
bis deputy Miss Roberts the court
-''n0rraph'r C. a Works. District
Attorney Hush D Spencer. Attorney
s. $ Moss and the Judge himself.
testified 'ho court overruled the
motion and defendant excepted to
such action
This being 'ho last motion pre-
-'uf"d b' 'he defendant the special
t"nirrm'u aor, called. and out OF
JOS names ou the list o. answered:
later on several Of these were ex-
ruscd for various reasons. some for
being over age and claiming their ex-
emption. sick families and not being
ahl" 10 read and write being the
principal excuses offered. W. c..
Carson was first ycnireman who was
passed 'o defendants counsel for ex-
animation they asked him no ques-
t.uns and being passed back to the
state was accepted by both sides as
juror number one for the trial OF
fh.s defendant Six other veniremen