The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1922-05-17

A"HFN| 80 '"NEN ~ ANNNFn I
therein named were efr0he-
ously stated, 4 ~ sufficient
for the pnrty cAarHsd TO show
that he was not In the state
NJ the times named IN thu IN
dictments. and whan these
facts are proved 40 that there
IN no dispute In regard to
thcrs. and there II no claim
OF any error IN the date
mined In the indictments. the
facts 10 proved M aufficicn,
10 show that tho person was
not N the state when the
crimss were, ever, commit
ted.
II ia further ~eontended by conn |
sci for the state Of Arizona. that
Il being The admitted duty OF the
executive Of New Mexico TO give
fun faith and credit to the rreurd
as presented by the governor Of
| arizona, that the affidavit accom-
panying II as to the presence or tho
accused partiea IN Arizona on slo
dates therein muntioncd and tirr
nfthcf Affidavit that They were
fugitiges from the Justice Of mo
state Of Arizona. inust be taken TO
have been made By persons whate
~crediblllty cannot here be denied.
] think this IA q proper statement
| OF the rule 10 be followed. bu, u
does not TO my mind. admitting
the right TO take proof here. do
aJvny win my right 70 weigh nhe
evidence a. presented hy THESE ~.
fdayit- and by the counier-ani-
iavits OF tho acrnscd pnrtiss snd
those supporting them.
What the Hearing DiscIo sri.
~ TO Guy l.. RoGern. rrer- ~re
presented here but two affidayila.
and these merely charge him with
being a fugitive from Justice. II
has been admitted on argument by
n Of the counsel " the state III
| Nr,gana that there IL no showing
sufficient to hold Guy l. Rogers.
ana his admission was not quca-
toned by the other counsel, and
4 will not be necessary TO discuss
the affidnvits rs they relate to him
A. to J v Cox. IN addition to
the formni affidnvlta that he N n
| fugitive from Justice, there n but
on" affidavit presented which ant
iertakes 10 ftS the date rpon which
be was IN 'hs state Of Arizona
The affiant. l.. r. McClannhnn, ae-
poaca that urior 20 tho time spsei-
ficd in the Indictment SOL. upon
which the offence charged IN saId
Indictment u alleged 20 have bapn
committed. ! saw \ v Coz ~ Hoi
hroak. navajo county. state Of Arl-
zuha several times prior TO 80
pcriod mentioned, and ALSO snw
him In lfnihruuk about one wcck
before the Hoikhrook State bank
closed IT, doors on December 10.
l1020.'
As 20 the first part of the afn-
| nwaaaN Ua aW.NTaa At. L. 49,.
TONED. and ID 10 Insufficient Ia my.
mind for hat reason: and as 80
the latter part OF u, whore the az.
liant doposes that he saw tho snid
Cox about one week before The Hot
brook State hank closed IN doorl
on Dec. 10. 1890. d Is admitted
thai thie date 50 fixed was Fix
days after the last date mentioned
In said Indictment as being tho
date Of the commission OF tile
fc.ifne charged Hgt II - ...a
nrccsfary 10 rest n decision ON this
point upcn the inguf1ciency 81 this
affidavit. hcchuen counted for Mr.
Cox have submitted an affidavit
ca which he denies having been IN
tho state OF Ari4nna on any OF thu
fnicH alleged In said indictment ~
IN said affidavit and this affidavit
a. ,s,ed * uoweii NJ rrrss, ~
lIanaolC who w.re offic.rs al Ia
time In the same bark OF wnich
Mr.. COX was IN officer. and had
avery opnoriunlfv 10 know the
facts upon which they deaoEr.
I'm addifion 10 Inc afodavits here.
tofore mentioned. setting forth
that an three ~ the parties nc-
-used are furitives from the hpi-
tlco OF the tate ~ Arizona. Ar
Iona. A. goolcv nud Mr. ~ m
Chamberlain each make the foi.
lowing nffidnyif. thai they ss,p
and talked with 4 M. Ravnolds IN
the county 81 Navnio. state OF Ar
zoua durinu The year 1889. ie-
twcnn the tyvcnfy-savontv or Nav
thai year ma Il thgrleth dnv az
t,no ~ mo sawe v.ar that tho,
any him IN aaId eoaiutx 81 Nsvaio
stare ~ Arixona nrlor Ia ,Iun. go
Ifga0s
,a..
~,