The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1893-12-27
BY The SUPREME COURT
Decision; Of Great Importance Affect.
Ing Criminal Actions
SLAYER NORTHRUP'S CASE
There Is No Appeal From an Order
of the District Court Grant
ing a Prisoner A
New Trial.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch 10 the Standard.
HELENA, Dec. 26.-The supreme court
has handed downs its decisions in the APP
peal cases OF Charles Northrup. In ono
Of the cases the state appealed from an
order of the district court of Park county
granting a new trial 10 Northrup, who has
been convicted of murder in the second
degree. In another case Northrup applied
for n writ of habeas corpus, claiming that
he has not been granted IA speedy trial.
having lain in jail over one term Of court.
Charles A. Bloom, another Park county
man convicted of murder, also had a new
trial granted. and the state appealed that,
too. The supreme court passed only on
the cases of Norlhrup aud ordered that
the same ruling OH the states appeal ap.
ply 10 Bloom.
On the appeal from the order granting
a new trial. the court holds ihat there is
no appeal allowed from an order of the
district court granting defendant n new
trial in a criminal ease. The court fur
thcr says that the Information i'm the case
is good 10 go to trial on again, not having
been disturbed by the order granting u
new trial. The opinion was by
Justice Dewitt, Chief Justice Penn
berton concurring. Justice Har-
wood dissentcd. On tho habcas
corpus matter, IA, court holds that
the facts do not constitute denial of n
speedy trial. as there was no unnecessary
delay, and Northrup is remanded for trial.
On the states appeal from the order for
new trial, the decision is very import
ant. The criminal practice act gives tho
right of appeal on question of law re-
served by the state, on admitting or re-
jecting witnesses, or their testimony, or
in deciding any question of law not mat
ter Of discretion, or in giving or refusing
any instructions to tho jury. This, tho
court declares, specially defines tho mat.
ters To which the state may except, and
among there is nothing about an
order granting new trial To tho
defendant. The state can only
have question of law reviewed on an ap-
peal from n judgment, and an order
granting a new trial is not a judgment,
but matter of discretion. As TO the in-
formation. the opinion says tho granting
of a new trial sets the case back 10 the in
formation for new start at that point,
whereas an arrest Of judgment destroys
the information. on the ground that the
offcnse is not within jurisdiction of tho
court, or that tho facts stated do not con-
stitute an oIfense.
An opinion by Justice Harwood. tho
others concurring. ailirms the Silver Bow
court in the ease Of James +. Mattingly ct
al. vs.. Leonard Lcwisohn. 1t is n fight
for the tito to the Miners Union lode
| claim, Silver Bow county. Seven years
ago tho respective claims were tried
and tho judgment was that neither
party was entitled to tho claims. Lew
isohn appealed and the supreme court
ordered a new trial. On the second trial
il was decided that Lewisohn had failed
10 establish his right to the premises. A,
the second trial Lewisohn had asked Ia
have tho other parties thrown out of
court OH the ground that their claims had
been adiudicated aud determined n gainsl
them at the first trial. and that this iudg-
ment had not been vacated on an appeal
prosecuted by Lcwisohn alone. The lower
court ovcrruled him and he appealed. The
supreme court sustains tho lower court.