Evening star., 1936-11-28
COUNSEL
FILES M0T|ONFOR
QUASH0F CHARGES
AI|ege Eight Defects in In.
diCtment Against Former
Official.
Petition OF JURORS
is PRESENTED COURT
Motion for Bill of Particulars on
Embezzlement Count Also
Asked.
By a Stan Correspondent OF The Star.


ROCKVILLE, Md, November 2S.-
Alleging eight defects exist in the
indictment accusing Edward Peter.
former counsel to the Montgomery
County Commissioners, OF false pre-
lenses and larceny of public funds, a
motion to quash the charges was filed
in Circuit Court today.
A motion for a bill of particulars
on the embezzlement charge embodied
in a second indictment also was pre-
sented by the defendants attorneys,
Robert B. Peter, jr.. and F. Barnard
Welsh, while accompanying the two
motions was a photostatic copy OF the
petition signed by the % grand jurors
who indicted Peter asking the indict-
ments be dismissed.
The jurors set forth in the petition,
which was submitted to States At
torney James H. Pugh some time ago,
but which failed to receive favorable
action, they were not advised when
considering the case that 1t was Gus
tomary for the commissioners counsel
to handle county funds, and since he
had accounted for the money when
requested, they felt he should not be
prosecuted.
Indicted Month Later.
Peter. well-known political figure,
was dismissed by the commissioners
on March a. 1886, in connection with
the disbursement of Wisconsin avenue
improvement funds and was indicted
a month later for false pretenses and
larceny of Sis, 5,402.05 and for embez-
Element of 5.402.05.
Defects claimed by his attorneys In
the motion to quash the false pre-
lenses and larceny indictment follow:
/. Ten different offenses improperly
alleged in one indictment.
3 Mere enumeration of 20 counts in
the indictment would prejudice the
defendant when read to jury.
3. Trial on all charges simultane-
ously would confuse the jury. further
prejudicing the defendant, for the de-
fense would be required to summon
different witnesses to testify about
facts leading up to issuance Of each oi
nine checks involved in the proceed
ings and many of checks are for totally
unrelated matters.
Objection to Panel
T. Certain jurors on panel would be
acceptable to defendant If tried TO;
alleged crimes charged in certain
counts. but would not be acceptable
if tried on all counts simultaneously
S. Presentation of all charges stimuli
taneously would deprive defendant OF
right to all challenges guaranteed him
by law.
6. Last two counts of indictment are
at variance with first 18 and. if true
the defendant could not have COM
mitted the crimes alleged in the
first 18.
Z. Alleged misjoinders and repug.
nancies confound the defendant be-
cause he is unable to ascertain The
exact intention of the grand jury re.
garding the various charges and Is un.
able, therefore, to prepare a proper
defense.
8. That if the grand jury intended
to charge the defendant with the COM
mission of only one offense. the in.
dictment would prejudice the defend.
ants rights because it might subject
him to 20 separate and distinct pun.
ishments for the one defense intended
to be charged.
Sees Rights Deprived.
Peters attorneys stated in the mo-
ton the alleged misjoinders and re-
pugnacies would deprive the defendant
of his right to be tried by the com.
mon law Of England. as guaranteed ir
the Declaration of Rights of the State
of Maryland, and also of the due
process of law guaranteed him by the
Constitution of the United States.
Attention also was called to the
grand jurors petition and the court
was requested to consider it part oi
the motion. The petition was turned
over to States Attorney Pugh with
the plea that he dismiss the indict.
ments.
THE reasons for this request" thu
petition reads, "are, first, that we wert
not advised, when considering thess
cases, that it was customary for ths
attorney to the county commissioner
to handle county funds. Considera.
ton of other cases since that tint
have convinced lis that such WAS thu