Free trader-journal and Ottawa fair dealer. (Ottawa, Ill.) 1920-1927, 1921-12-29
COURT RULES
AGAINST SMALL
Continued from Page II

then loaned to Swift and Company
and Armour and Company, Chicago
packers, on notes paying seven to
eight per cent interest. Not more
than two per cent of this interest was
paid to the state, the grand Jury
claimed, and the defendants are
charged with retaining the remainder.
THE Grant Park Bank" the grand
jury said was private institution
which ceased to function in 1908, and
which had at the time of the alleged
conspiracy only one depositor the
state of Illinois"
o. KS Grand Jury Report.
Judge Edwards denied the motion
OF the defense that the charges be
quashed on the ground that the publ
cation of the grand jurys special
report'-which the defense claims was
an illegal document-had deprived the
defendants of their chance of a fair
trial and due process of law.
He said of this report however, that
this court hesitates to give further
publicity to these findings, so they
will not be herein enumerated, suffice
1t to say that this report only makes
findings OF fact involving these defen-
dants, but sets forth in detail the
manner and means in and by which
these alleged offenses were commit
ted 1t charges that an ingenius
scheme was devised by the defendants
and closely adhered to for circumvent-
ing the law, and recites in detail how
said scheme was operated, and was
signed by the twenty-three members
OF the grand jury.
However, the presiding judge of the
circuit, court ordered it. to be spread
on record; it thereby becomes aces
sible to the public and if error was
committed it was after it was pre-
sented to the court and is not a sub
ject for review by a court of concur
rent jurisdiction"
Quashes Joint Indictment.
The Indictment which charges the
three defendants Jointly with embez-
Element of 100000 was quashed by
the court on technicality-fa
of the grand jury foreman to sign his
name at the foot Of the true bill pre-
sentment-and without consideration
of other objections which the defense
had raised.
In the conspiracy indictment,
counts two and three were quashed
because they failed to allege the spe-
cial injury which was supposed to
have been the object of the conspiracy
named. These counts charged the
three defendants with conspiracy to
commit an offense against the state
to defraud the state by malfeasance,
partially and extortion and by taking
fees and awards above the legal sal
airy of the treasurer; to deprive the
state of an honest administration of
the Office of state treasurer, to refuse
to obey the law; to unlawfully place
state funds in jeopardy for their I'M
lawful gain; and to defraud the state
by Withholding funds due it.
Kills Count Six.
Count six in the same indictment
was quashed because it failed to al
lege commission of an overt act in
furtherance Of the conspiracy. Count
thirteen, the confidence game charge
was dismissed because it failed to fol-
low the legal requirements and
charge the defendants "feloniously"
attempted to obtain money from the
state. Judge Edwards held omission
of the word rendered the count void
Judge Edwards decision covered
points as follows:
1.-THE motions to quash the indie
ments and each count thereof may,
for the purposes of this opinion be
divided into three general sub-divi- |
sions.
FIRST That the board of super |
visors of Sangamon county which |
selected the grand jurors was not a
legal board in March, 1921, when said
grand jurors were named, for the fol- |
lowing reasons:
(A) 1.-The county board was never
legally organized, as required by sta
tute.
(B)"The grand jurors were named
by a committee on juries' whose ap-
pointment is questioned.
tC) "The board by it's adjourn
ment ON September Ia, 1920, to
Thursday adjourned sine die and a
special meeting was called pursuant
to statute.
SECOND. 1.-THE so-called special
report by the grand jury that return
ed these indictments was prejudical
to the rights of the defendants, to the |
extent that no conviction could be
and they claim in support
thereof:
(A) 1.-THE rule of secrecy was vio-
ated. i
(B) Evidence was detailed and
findings made by said body that are in
of the constitution. wherein
due process of law is guaranteed
very citizen.
(C) THE publicity given said re-
BORT deprives the defendants of the