Weekly journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1908-1929, 1914-08-19
CLARK TOFACE JURY Of
PEERS SEPTEMBER 10TH
Judge Cooper of Tucson Over-Rules De-
murrers of Defense to Graft In
formations Victory for Coun-
ty Attorney 0'Sullivan

uClCHudHl Has lllCI pOoCu uClllul =
rur. attacking the sufficiency OF the
same upon a number of grounds
Case No. 1909 was selected from
the number for presentation to the
Court. it being agreed that the
argument of the demurrer in this
case would present every question
involved in the others; and hence,
the sufficiency OF all might be test
ed by the disposition of this one.
That counsel for both the State
and the defendant had exercised
great diligence in preparing for
the presentation of their different
contentious was plainly manifest
by their able. exhaustive and in
teresting arguments; and | desire
TO express. in passing my appre
citation of the very valuable assist
ance afforded the Court i'll the de
termination of knotty legal prob
lens, by the careful and painstak-
ing study and preparation of the
attorneys.
Keeping in mind from the start
that for the purposes of the de
murrer all the allegations of the
/ information are presumed to be
true, it is for the Court to say.
after careful examination and con
sideration, whether the County At
torney has met the requirements
of the law and has stated facts
sufficient to constitute a public of
tense.
The question before the Court is.
then: Does this information meet
/ all the requirements of the law?
/ | gathered from the argument that
/ il is conceded that some of the re-
quirements OF paragraph DAB. at
least. are fully met, for instance
4 1t is entitled in a court having
ed and presented to the Court by
the county attorney of the county
in which the court was held; that
the defendant is named by his
true name: that the offense. if any
was committed within the juris
! diction of this court: and that it was
committed at some time prior t.
/ the filing OF the information. 1t
follows then that if the County At
torney has failed in any particular
/ 1t must be in some of the require
ments of sections 6 or 7.
That the act or omission
charged as the offense is clear
ly and distinctly set forth in
ordinary and concise language,
and in such manner as to en-
able a person of common under
standing to know what is III
tended.
That the act or omission
charged as the offense is stated
with such a degree OF certain
ty as to enable the court to
pronounce judgment upon a
conviction, according to the
right of the case"
! 1t is alleged that the Board o:
Supervisors had established a Gus
tom and practice in dealing will
| the business of building and keep
ing the public roads of the county
in repair, and that custom and
practice seems to have obtained
for sometime and during the whole
time OF the incumbency of the de
PENDANT in the office of County
Superintendent of Roads. The al
legations of the informatiOns leave
no doubt on that score; nor can
it be said. in view of the claim
presented by defendant to the BoarC
of Supervisors as set forth in the
information that the defendant was
not acquainted with the custom
On the contrary. it plainly appears
that his dealings with the Board
of Supervisors in the matter of his
expenses in performing his duties
had all been carried on according
to the custom alleged during the
whole of his term of Office. Wheth-
er or not the Board of Supervisors
was justified in adopting this meth
cd of doing business it is unnec
9 cessary for the Court to determine
in this action. Doubtless it was
considered the simpler and less
troublesome method of settling the
accounts of expenses incurred in
building and improving the public
roads of the county, and if the al
legations of the information be
true, las we must consider them
for all purposes OF the demurrer
can the defendant excuse himself on
the ground that the Board OF Su-
pervisors. by its dereliction, had
opened the way and granted the op-
portunity for the presentation of a
claim which was without founda-
ton in fact?
+ The Supreme Court of the then
Territory of Arizona, in its decision
in the case of Berreyesa VS.. Terri
tory of Arizona. 9Th Ariz., 3S5 Goth
Pac. 472) expressed its opinion on
the question of the customs Of
Boards OF Supervisors, and we are
bound to accept its determination
OF this question as the governing
| law.
Without further discussion of the
several questions urged by defend
ant which | have carefully consid-
cred, am constrained to again
quote paragraph o44.
No Indictment or iufOrua-