The Neihart herald. [volume] (Neihart, Mont.) 1890-1901, 1896-12-12
Guilty or Not Guilty?

Guilty or not guilty." is the question
uppermost in the minds of those who
heard the Justice ~ he dismissed the
case of the state against A.. J.. Finnell
for indecent assault, heard before one of
our local Justices of the Peace on the
9th.
The charge lodged against the defend
ant was a serious one, of the grade %
felony. The trial lasted two DAYS, both
sides being represented by counsel, and
every effort was made to bring out the
fdcts. At the close of the arguments of
counsel the court addressed himself to
the byst-nders as nearly as possible in
the following words: complainant no
doubt thought he had a good case when
he filed the complaint, but the evidence
is.contlicting and it is doubtful if in
case bound the defendant to the dis
-tfict court a conviction could or would
be had; | have sent up several notably
the McGee case) only to have the de-
fehdents turned loose after ineurring
great expense to the county, and if |
should bind this man over. the case
would very likely result as the former
ones, so | will therefore dismiss the case
and discharge the defendant. but I want
to,say and have il understood that |
have no sympathy for the defendant
and he should have bccn treated the
same rs a party was waited upon here
last summer. and ordered out Of town,
and | will say to the boys here and the
defendant that the same ought to DO
done in this case for We should not
tolerate this class of men in our midst
the defendant is discharged"
AFTER hearing the foregoing remarks,
IS it any wonder that the citizens are
asking one another the above quest, II?
Tho hearing vas to ascertain probable
cause and If there was not probable
caitsc Or belief in his guilt sufficient to
bind him over, why the suggestion to
the boys to drive the defendant out of
violent and unlawful punishment up,n
him when there was not probable cause
coi,rt! Then again, there was n pre-
sumption Of guilt. Wherein has n jus.
tice the right or authority to say that
the county shall not be put to the ok
Ierse, but the matter referred to the
boys as a means of economy? And is
it a valid excuse to turn criminals at
large because in other cases on a trial
before the district court an acquittal
was had and the wise judgement OF the
Justice reversed? As an officer sworn
to uphold the dignity of law and the
courts, | respectfully protest against
erroneous conclusions and misinterpre-
tations of law and authority. Has it
come to this, that justices Of the peace
shall constitute themselves courts of Fl
nalldetcrmination without aid or inter
veAtion of a jury! Is the right of trial
BY jury abolished? The people, jealous
of their rights have invoked the aid and
intervention Of the jury system. We
have not reached that enlightened period
when we are willing to let every town
ship justice pass final judgement on the
guilt or innocence of those charged with
crime. For court not even the highest
in the land, is vested with such power.
Is it not just proper in the name of law
and order to object to a country justice
arrogating to himself such power when
his excuse is that his judgment has been
reversed in a higher court or because it
isra saving to the taxpayers To turn
those charged before him over to the
tender mercies of the mob. If such is
permitted it will be but a short time
until the mob nsurps the place Of JUS
ticc. dispenses with courts. and deals
out justice in its own peculiar way.
Surely this is not the goal our modern
rcformers are seeking, and in their name
and in the name of the people, and law
abiding citizens | submit the foregoing
objections.
Respectfully.
r Ricl,ari R.n,utt