The Mankato free press., 1921-12-30

gain and to defraud the state by
withholding funds due 1t.
Count six in the same indictment
was uuashed because it failed to al
lege commission of an overtact In
furtherance of the conspiracy. Count
thirteen, the confidence game charge
was dismissed because it failed to
follow the legal requirements and
charge the defendants "feloniously'
attempted to obtain money from the
state. Judge Edwards held omission
Judge EdwardS Decision
Judge Edwards decision in part, fol-
lows:
,"The motions to quash the indict-
ments and each count thereof may for
the purpose of this operation be di-
vided into three general sub divisions:
N"First-That the board of supervis-
lors OF Sangamon county which select
ed the grand jurors was not legal
board in March 1921, when said grand
jurors were named, for the following
reasons: ...-.
"(A) The county board was never
legally organized as required by stat
"(B) The grand Jurors were named
by a committee on juries,' whose ap-
"(C) The board by its adjourn
ment on September Ia, 1920, to Thurs
day. adjourned sine die and no spec
ial meeting was called pursuant to
statute.
The Special Grand Jury Report
: "Second-The So called special re-
port by the grand jury that returned
these indictments was prejudicial to
the rights of the defendants, to the
extent that no conviction could be sus-
tanned and they claim in support
thereof:
"(A) The rule of secrecy was vio-
lated.
"(B) Evidence was detailed and
findings made by said body that are
in violation of the constitution, where
in due process of law is guaranteed
every citizen. >.I
"(C) The publicity given said report
deprives the defendants of the pre-
sumption of innocense' guaranteed
every accused.
= "Third-The remaining points raised
and argued, question the sufficiency
and validity Of certain counts in each
of said indictments:
"(A) The state in reply contends
that the board of supervisors in ques-
ton was legally organized.
"(B) That If not legally organized
it became a 'defacto' board by virtue
of the regular June, 1920, meeting.
"(C) That the adjournment on Sep
tember IA, 1920, was not a sine die
adjournment.
"(D) That the special report of the
grand jury does not affect the validity
of the indictments.
: "These questions would be treated
in the order as herein above named.
I'm the determination of the legality
Of the board of supervisors of Sanga-
mon county for the year 1920-21, it
was necessary that evidence be taken
in open court.
The Findings of Facts
From said sevidence, the court
makes the following finding of facts ::
That an alleged special meeting OF
said EOard of supervisors held in
April, 1920, at which the board or
ganized by electing a chairman and
interalia appointed committee on
| jurors
<"That said special meeting was not
called pursuant to statute, in that the
county clerk did not cause the publ
cation of notice as provided by law.
| THAT there were regular meetings
of said board in June and September
1920.
THAT on September IA, 1920, said
board adjourned until Thursday In
connection with the last finding the
defense introduced certified copy oi
the record of said September meet
ing, showing the adjournmnt to
Thursday The state then called to
the stand Charles w. Byers, county
clerk of Sangamon county, and intro
duced the record of said clerk, show
ing after the word Thursday, the
dc
fod after the word Thursday has
not been erased or altered; the word
September Is, 1920 are written, in a
slightly different colored ink and are
fraction of an inch higher in align
ment than is the balance of the sent
ence, yet said Byers persistently
swore that there was no period. T'
there was no difference in the color
Of the ink nor the alignment of the
sentence.
"The court thereupon adjourned
fered further evidence. Byers then
/ testified that the record had been al
tered, that it had been done by one
Ethel s. Bucklin, an employe in his
office in the month of July, 1921
sometime after the indictments had
been returned
| "His conduct and demeanor while
on the stand, coupled with the ap-
parent improbability of his story
makes it the duty of the court to give
him more than passing notice.
'"The court finds there was sub
J stantial compliance with the statute
by the board of supervisors of Sanga
, mon county, and that the grand jury
was legal grand jury"
COUNTY BOARD SESSION