The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-05
AS TO PROSECUTIONS
A Question Arises Which Deeply Con-
Germs Attorneys and Judges.
HOW TO MAKE COMPLAINTS
The Matter Has Twice Come Be-
fore Judge Speer's Notice With
In Two Days-keliosg's Sem
tence-George Davis Case.

A question that is by some attorneys
and Judge Speer considered of great
importance in relation to criminal pros
ecutions. and one that might, If taken
to the supreme court. result in turning
loose every criminal sent to Deer
Lodge from Butte for years past, was
raised in the trial OF Eugene Sullivan
the other day in an attack on the in
formation on the ground that IL did
not give the court Jurisdiction, by
failure to state that the prosecution
was conducted in the name and in be-
half Of the state. Judge Speer over
ruled the objection made in the Sulli-
van case, but at the same time express
ed doubt as to the sufficiency of the
information. Yesterday morning the
same point was raised in a demurrer
to the informations against Henry Con-
nelly, Frank Gaffney and George Smith
and the demurrer was sustained and
new informations were filed to conform
with the objections raised. Section "a
of Article s of the state constitution
says: THE style of all processes shall
be, The State of Montana and all
prosecutions shall be conducted in the
name and by the authority of the
same"
All informations in criminal actions
have heretofore been entitled, The
State of Montana, plaintiff, VS.. John
Doe, defendant" but the body of the
informations read that 1.-The above NAM
ed defendant, John Doe. is accused by
Melvin l.. Wines, the county attorney
in and for the county of Silver Bow.
state of Montana, by this information,
of the crime of robbery" and, after de-
scribing the nature of the defense
charged. concluding with, Contrary to
the form, force and effect of the stat
ute in such cases made and provided,
and against the peace and dignity or
the state of Montana"
The attorneys who raised the objec-
ton to the form of information argued
that an important jurisdictional fact
was lacking, and that was that the in
formation was not filed in the name of
the state and the prosecution was not
conducted in the name and by the au-
thority" of THE State of Montana" as
expressly required by Article q of the
constitution, above quoted, but that II
was conducted by and in the name or
Melvin L. Wines, the county attorney
of Silver Bow county.
The county attorney, however, dis
agrees with the attorneys who raised
the question and says that the title of
the cause, THE State of Montana,
plaintiff, VS.. John Doe, defendant" and
the concluding clause, Contrary to
the statute, and against the peace and
dignity of the state was sufficient to
show that the prosecution was conduct
ed in the name of the state, aside from
the fact, of which the court had judi
cial knowledge, that the county attor-
ney was acting as the representative Of
the state
Judge Speer, however, was not so
sure about il and preferred to have fu-
ture informations drawn so that there
would be no question on that point, and
the county attorney filed a new infor-
nation against Connolly, Gaffney and
Smith, and changed the only form so
as to read:
THE above named defendants, Henry
Connolly, Frank Gaffney and George
Smith, are accused by Melvin L. Wines,
the duly elected, qualified and acting
attorney in and for the county OF Silver
Bow, state of Montana, in the name of
and on behalf of and by the authority
of the state of Montana. by this infor-
nation of the crime of robbery" etc.
1t is argued that II the question
should be taken to the supreme court
and il should there be decided that the
old form of information did not state
jurisdictional fact, every man in the
penitentiary from Silver Bow county
could be released on hapeas corpus or
new trials ordered for them. There Is,
however, hardly even remote posi-
bility that such a contingency viii
arise and the county attorney Is quite
satisfied with the old form of informa-
tions and the legality of the convictions
upder them.