Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-07-16

! Magistrate Smith was called upon to
! identify papers that passed through
| his hands in the Rock Island police
| court relative to the cases of j. B.
youths, who in May, 1912, were ar
rested on complaint of Officer Joseph
/ Frankhouser for resisting arrest. They
were committed to Jail to await the
action of the grand jury under $1,000
bonds. The charge is that in the in
term the men were released after the
sum of S25 had been paid to Bruner.
The case was never presented to the
grand jury. although information was
later filed in county court by States
Attorney Magill. The capias was
turned over to the sheriff, but the
Mitchell, brothers were never arrested.
The only purpose in calling Magis-
trate Smith was to secure evidence of
the correctness of all the papers in
the case as he knew them from the
records of his court AS a result of
this examination the assistant prosecu-
tor submitted 13 additional exhibits on
behalf of the people. These covered
the complaints, with warrants attach
ed, the mittimus, transcripts from JUS
tice court, certified copies of the recog
nizances and informations in county
court. in the cases of both ]. B.
Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell. Magis
trate Smith swore to the correctness
of all the papers as far as he had any
thing to do with the case.
1t was brought out in the testimony
that I is the practice for Magistrate
Smith in the Rock Island police court
to personally sign the names of Off
GERS and constables serving ana re-
turning warrants for arrest from his
court, if the particular officer is not
around at that time. He testified to
having signed Frankhouser's name to
the papers in the Mitchell cases. Haas
brought forth from the testimony yes
terday afternoon that the prisoners
were legally turned over to the GUS
tody of the sheriff to hold until the
action by the grand jury.
Defense Objects.
Objection was raised by Attorney
Kenworthy on the introduction as evil
dence. of any feature of the Mitchell
arrest cases, as having no bearing on
the charge of conspiracy in the indict-
ment. was the cue for three-sided
discussion among the attorneys and
the court as to what extent the pro-
ceedings in the present case are af-
fected by the well-established rule of
the statute of limitations in criminal
procedure. In Illinois it is the law
that charge of specific overt acts
either the crime itself or incidents
directly bearing as proof of the crime
must be entered in open court during
a period extending over not more than
IS months from the date of the COM
mission of the crime or overt act and
the return of the charge in the indict-
ment.
The Indictment under which Bruner
and Magill are being tried was re-
turned by the January grand jury May
2. 1914 The events in the Mitchell
arrest episode occurred in May, 1912.
more than IS months ago.
Kenworthy argued that there must
be some certain proof of an Illegal
overt act accomplished within the time
covered by the statute of limitations
in order for any evidence in the case
to be permissible or affecting the case
in any way.
Aren't there any overt acts within
the statute of limitations mentioned
in the bill of particulars. Mr.. Ken
worthy" asked the court. I'VE claim
mott the counsel for the defense re-
piled. "Our contention is that just
because the gentlemen OF the state