Imperial Valley press., 1929-07-15
DEFENSE SCORES
SEVERAL POINTS
IN GILLETT CASE
Expect Trial May Be
Completed BY End Of
Present Week.

Although Sheriff G. L. Gillett will
possibly be allowed to show what
he did in response to the demand
made upon him by the county sup
ervisors for the return of certain
moneys the grand jury alleges he
took for his own use over a period
of five years and for which they
indicted him, he will not be allow
ed to bring before the grand jury
his intent to pay tine money back.
That is the ruling Judge Finney
is expected to give this afternoon
after part of the morning session of
the trial in which Gillett is before
the court on charges of appropriat-
ing and failing to account for money
had been taken up with arguments
following an objection Of District
Attorney Heald to testimony at
tempted by the defense attorneys,
Ernest Utley and Harry Horton.
The defense today opened the
fourth week of the trial by intro
ducing witnesses with the idea of
showing that Gillett acted in good
faith in accepting and keeping the
money paid to him for the feeding
of prisoners, using part of 1T foc
the actual meals.
The first defense witness this
morning was Carl Brown, former
county supervisor, who testified that
he knew as we'll as the other super
visors that Gillett was keeping the
money paid him from various
sources for. the feeding and main
tenance of the prisoners and when
the question was raised as to wheth-
er or not Gillett was entitled to
keep the money that the sheriff Of
fered to turn the entire matter over
to the county. This offer was not
acted upon by the supervisors.
w. H. Brooks, Ralph Anderson,
former county supervisors, and
Romeo c. Smith, present supervisor,
followed Brown on the stand and
testified along the same line with
the additional statements that Gll-
lett at no time endeavored to keep
the matter sercet but had himself
brought the matter of whether or
not he was entitled to the money to
the attention OF various county au'
thorities. R A. Holt and Frank
Beale, testified that the same sys-
tenn was in effect during the regime
of former sheriffs.
Attorney Testifies
Harry Horton, one Of the defense
attorneys then took the stand and
stated that he had been a deputy in
charge of civil cases under Utley
when the latter was district attor-
new and that Gillett had asked him
for advice regarding the money In
question. This conversation, Hor-
ton said, was later continued before
the board Of supervisors and that
Gillett in both instances had been
advised he was acting legally.
The district attorney objected
when testimony tended to show that
Gillett had intended to pay back any
money that his books might show
had been kept by him illegally
Heald stating that restoration OF
intent to restore was no defense.
The Gillett counsel countered with
statement that Gillett had not
been allowed to examine the books
from which the grand jury got Its
figures and therefore could not DE,
termine whether or not there had
been mistakes or that the grand jury
had made mistakes.
Heald came back with the state
ment that the defense had every
opportunity to get copies of any
part of the records or books, in fact
had given Charles Nice, undersheriff
such copies upon his demand.
Heald went forther and told the
court, the jury having been excus'
ed meanwhile, that Utley and Nuffer
had attempted to make statement
to the grand jury and that he
/Coutinued on Page Six