The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-05-04
They ARE NOW IN JAIL.
Decision Of the Supreme Court in
the-Colsbraied Beer Hall
Cases.
The Application for IA Writ OF
Habsas Corpus Was Denied
Yesterday.
Hansen. barney. Mediums aud marion
VIM serve oat the Sentences I'm
posed by Judge spser.

The suprems court yesterday handed
down decision Ia tue cases OF Peter Han
sen, II. s. Barney. Neil AoGinnis and
Charles Marion. Ths cases are known as
ths Butte beer hall ossea" and came to
ths sup eme court from Silver Bow county.
The tArtiss named we're tried and convicted
on she charge OF running beer halls in
Butte In which women were employed.
IheT we're sentenced 10 pay a hns and TO
bs Imprisoned. Before the sentence could
DO carried out the men applied 20 the SUI
proms court for writ of habeas corpus.
the obisot being to allow them 90 be re
leased on bail pending the result OF the APP
peal. The eou Z handed down tie decision
yestsrdsJ. denying the writ IL was as fol-
lows;
This il an application for discharge from
imp .isonmsnt, through the writ Of habeaa
corpus IL appears that relator vas in
dioted, and convicted. under the provisions
of section 26i. criminal laws, which reads
as follows. That hereafter u shall be IN
lawful for any person or persons company
or corporation. to sell or dispose Of my
spirituous, viaous or malt liquors in any
room, ial or other place where women OF
minors are employed or allowed to assem-
BILE for the purposes OF the business thersin
carried on" And the penalty OF hne in
the aum OF $500. and costa. together with
Imprisonment sixty days in the county jail,
was assessed ne punishment on the verdict
OF the jury. Al the close Of the trial de-
| PENDANT announced his intention 10 move
fnr trfu al
court to sta execution pending dstetermi
nation OF said action, on de,endanta giving q
good and sufficient bond. TO be approved by
the court conditioned fof his appearance,
and obediencs TO all orders OF couit In
/ the case. IheTeupon. as disclosed in the
record, defendant procured 60 be executed
on his bshSlf, bond. conditioned rs men
TONED, which was approved By the eouT.
ana filed; bat without granting any stay OF
execution the court sentsnced the prisoner
according 60 the We diet. and orders him
into custody, for Imprisonment ne . o.
4 y divided by the Judgment
Tue first oint insisted on by the prison
er's counsel as ground for discharge ~,
that by reason OF having produced said
bond. and the same having been approved
by the court and filed. the court in eject.
/ by i'm plication. granted a stay Of execution
/ pending tue liberalization OF the motion
fos new trial; or. as otherwise stated, that
/ the court while retaining defendants bond
OF stay. could not lawfully tmprison him on
the judgment during the pending OF said
motion for new trial.
| The facts shown har lily bear the inter
! probation insisted on BY defendants oOun-
&c. IL does not follow that because GER
tain things we're done looking toward a
star Of the execution, the court by implioa-
ton ha gtanted such stay. II 80, the NOV
/ ing for some order which the court may
grant or refuse. and the ding OF q bond 10
/ n ~ a m - l.
/ lily aPpToVe II requested so TO do. while
still c0naidsrlng the propriety OF Rantinp
/ the order sought would commit the court
I aa having granted she orde- moved for. un-
less the cou made some special order an
nulling the bond TO escape from tbs impli-
/ cation that she motion had been gran ted.
/ This view il wholly untenable.
Secondly. IL IL affirmed that the imprls-
onmsnt of defendant on this conviction 10
illegal. because the judgment includes the
cost of prosecution ua part OF tbs hne. By
references to the statute under which the
conviction was had. 10 will be seen that the
costs prosecution are required 90 be iu-
l c.u led in the fine assessed. Therefore this
objection 10 untenable. state vs. S1lli-
van. 8 Mont. 1874. MOreove u the statute
was 80 AIMED tnAt the costs could not be
properly included ia she hne, the prisoner
would not, 70 that reason. be entitled so
diachnrRe at this time, because 10 appears
that he 10 oonhnel % present on the judg-
ment for imprisonmsnL independently Of
the hne.
Thirdly. Petitioners counsel go the
proposition that the provisions Of said stat
ute are unconstitutional, because in effect
/ n probib u n certain class. 1. . women,
from NJ employed in q place where in
tor eating llQuo arr sold. aud tberefols
restraints such persons from engaging IN a
/ lawful employment. Tnis statute does not
I 70 bid she employment of women or min
ORE but lt dOss p ObiOit all persons aud
composites fiom selling intOx eating Ii
Quora 10 n place whs.e women or minors
are employed or assembled for the par
poses OF business. here appears 30 be
wisdom and propriety in ths provision as
I ID police regulation. and We fail 10 find in 10
tue infringement Of any y DIVISION Of on
constitution. 1ne California court, In
cases cited on this point, had under con
sileration constitutional provisions which
are NOT found in the constitution Of this
state and which also appear to have been
greatly nodihed by isvlslon OF the Cali
fofnia Constitution since the cases relied
on we're decided.
! Other points were urged relating TO pro-
ceduTe which ars not pertinent 20 the in
/ quiry on habeas corpus; besides. the record
/ OF court proceedings 10 mot u opsrly before
US in this proceeding. In 10 AoCutehson.
/ 10 Mont llb.
Finding no ground for discharge Of petit
tioneF. he must be remandsd TO custody.
anu the order Of this court will be entered
accordingly.
Immediately on the rendering Of the
| TO tbs sheriff OF Silver Bow county 10 take
I q Il ts.er A.