Bonners Ferry herald. [volume] (Bonners Ferry, Idaho) 1904-current, 1914-01-02
Communicated

nineteenth that you say, concern
ing the case of the State VS. Henry,
this: The case has cost the Coun-
ty several thousand dollars thus
far, and c.. H. Martin, Peter John
son and G. A. Buhrow, Riser's at
torneys, state new information
will be filed and the trial attempted
once more
There are some implications in
this statement which the writer
thereof perhaps did not intend
but which the writer of this COM
munication will not permit to pass
unchailenged. Section 1903 OF the
Code provides that an information
for perjury shall state: lin what
Court and before whom the oath
alleged to be false was taken, and
] that the Court or the person before
whom it was taken had authority
to administer it. 1t was the con-
tention of the defendants attorneys
on the trial of the case, that this
statute required the name of the
person who administered the oath
to be stated i'll the information,
and | believe that they were right
in their contention.
While / had nothing to do with
the trial of this case on prelimin-
ary hearing before the Probate
Judge, nor in the District Court
until after the first information
was filed, yet the facts concerning
the trial last week and the reason
for the verdict of not guilty. be-
cause of variance between the in
formation and proof are as follows:
Mr.. Robert S. McCrea, Clerk of
the District Court of this county,
on preliminary hearing, testified
that the defendant S. T.. Henry,
was duly sworn and then answered
: the following questions in the toll
lowing way:
Question! You swore him'
Answer: / did.
Question: In the usual way, you
swore him, to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth?
Answer; | did"
Upon the trial in the District
Court last week, Mr.. Mccrea was
not so sure that he Administered
the oath to Mr.. Henry, and 1t
developed upon the examination of
Mr.. Crane, the Court Reporter,
that Judge Flynn had admin
istered the oath; whereupon, Mr..
McCrea, or further cross-examina-
ton, testified that he believed that
Mr.. Cranes notes were correct,
and that he (Mccrea) did not adj
minister the oath.
1t was, therefore, directly as the
result of the evidence of Mr.. Nc
Crea In testifying on the prelimin-
airy hearing that he did administer
the oath that the attorneys for the
state in this case drew the informa-
ton alleging that he did admins
ter it and which resulted in the
variance between the information
aud proof 1t was not the fault
of the attorneys for the State that
the mistrial occurred last week.
know that your paper does not
wish to blame any one where no
blame should attach, and this is
one of those cases.
This statement of yours implies
that the attorneys will file new
information. If you will take the
trouble to examine the order of
Judge Dunn filed upon the verdict
of the jury in this case, you will
find that the Court instructed the
Prosecuting Attorney to file a new
information. In other words,
evidence in this case, the statutes
permitting him SO to do, directs
the. Prosecuting Attorney to CON
time the prosecution.
| am not writing you for the
purpose of entering into any con-
troversy with you, but merely to
set you right as to the facts