The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-12-03
JACKSON LOSES
PLEA TO QUASH
BRIDE CHARGES
Indictment Is Sufficient to
Bring Three to Trial,
Judge Rules.

JUuNC nUlGSs
Jackson Ruling Story on Page One)
Special Judge Oscar H. Montgom-
cry based his decision overruling
motion Of Governor jackson, Re-
publican County Chairman George
v. Coffin and Attorney Robert I.
Marsh to quash the indictment
charging them with conspiracy to
bride on these three points:
!. Sufdciency of the indictment.
which, he held, informed the de-
PENDANTS adequately of the nature
of the offense with which they are
charged.
2. Date set out In the Indictment
as to when bride was alleged to
have been offered was plainly in
correct, but innaterial because it
was not the essence of the offenSe.
8. Statute Of limitations was set
aside by concealment Of the alleged
offense, concealment being effected
by threat of power held by the Ku-
Klux Khan.
Refers to Statutes
Speaking loudly SO that his voice
could be heard to the rear of the
crowded courtroom he read from
the statutes definitions of con-
Spiracy to bride a public officer, as
charged in the Indictment.
TIC Tsouinund of Ian 9th thu nt1o
contained in the Indictment and
referred to the defendants motion
to quash on the grounds that "()
the facts stated do not constitute
a public offense, and Cd the offensf,
is not stated with sufficient
certainty"
Referring to Clause 5 of Section
1924, Burns Statutes 1925, prnvid-
ing that an indictment will be slIffi-
cient If the offense charged is stated
with such degree of certainty that
the court may pronounce Judgment
upon a conviction according to the
right of the case," Judge hIontgom-
cry said:
"This Indictment in charging the
offense meets all these requirements
and fully and fairly s.pprises the
defendants of the NATURE and char
acter of the charge against them
and so as to enable them to prepare
their defense"
Date Called Erroneous
He dwelt at considerable length
on the defendants contention that
the date of the alleged offense was
material and made essential if the
statute Of limitations is to BIZ, tolled.
From the fact that Remy was
appointed prosecutor Dec. 8, 1928,
and assumed his duties Dec. 10,
1928, five Gfays before the date of
the alleged offense as set out in
the Indictment, Judge Montgomery
declared "'it is manifest from the
allegations above shown that the
date given in the indictment is err
roneous and the State may. prove
the true date upon the trial"
1.-THE indictment" he read, Gin this
case charges that the alleged offense
was committed on Dec. IS, 1928, but
the indictment was not returned nor
any prosecution begun until Sept. 80,
1927, and it would be clear that the
prosecution was barred and the in
dictment must be quashed, unless it
contains allegations which bring 1t
within some exceptions to the gen.
eral rule of limitations"
Explains Limitation Statute
This statute requires that prose-
cution of all criminal offenses ex-
cept treason, murder, arson and
kidnapping, must ordinarily be
brought within two years or be for
ever barred.
"Section 2053 Burns Statutes 1926"
he read, provides: eff any person
who has committed an offense,
thereafter is absent from the State,
or so conceals himself that process
cannot be served upon him, or con-.
ceals the fact that the offense has
been committed, the time of absence
or concealment is not to be included
in computing the period of limita-
ton"
He returned to that part of the
Indictment which set out that the
alleged conspirators could obtain
McCray's conviction or acquittal,
because of the great influence of
the Ku-Klux Khan in Indiana and
their influence in it's membership.
Cites Times Story
This, the indictment declared,
sealed McCray's lips and resulted in
concealment of the alleged offer un-
til publication Of such fact was
made in the Indie napolis Times on
July IS, 1927"
Montgomery denied defense cotn-
sells contention that the statute of
limitations, once set running, could
not be stopped and that at the ex-
piration of two years from Dec. 8,
1928, right of prosecution ceased,
citing the case of Ulmer VS.. State,
IA Ind, So, 81.
He likewise denied the defend
ants contention that concealment
was impossible because McCray, "a
State officer, knew about the al
legged offer