The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-31


1 cusation Is made I'm said affidavit as
| affiant believes. maliciously. willfulIy,
| and with the sole purpose and intention
| of injuring the said judge and that said
| charge is maliciously false. and affiant
/ believes that the party making said
| charge knew the same to be false when
| he made .he same
Afffant further says that he was pres
| ent in court and knows of his own
| knowledge that the chief deputy county
attorney of Guy w. Stapleton elected TO
| try the case Of the state vs. Frank
Moody first. and prior TO the trial of the
case of the state VS.. Franey. and the
| cases were SO set. but that after John
| T. Baldwin became associated as special
| prosecutor, the said Baldwin desired to
have the case against Franey tried first,
but that the attorneys for Moody and
Franey objected to any change being
made, and that the court then declined
to make any change as to the order of
trial for the reasons before stated. and
that it is not true that said county at
torney. or any of his deputies ever at
any time elected To try the case of
Franey first.
illuminating Lewis.
Affiant further says that he was also
present when the witness Lewis. men
toned in said affidavit, was used as
witness. and that said witness did not
at any time testify to any threats. in
situations or menaces of bodily harm
directed toward the said witness. or for
the purpose of preventing the said wit
ness from testifying truthfully upon the
stand but that said witness testified
that he had heard someone in the CORR
dor say something about people having
been sent to the penitentiary for false
swearing. but that said witness did not
at any time testify or intimate that
anybody had threatened him with bodily
harm of any kind or character what
ever.
Affiant further says that while said
witness was so testifying one of the at
torneys for defendant Moody objected
upon the ground that said defend
ant was not responsible for what
strangers might say in the absence of
said defendant, which objection was
sustained. and a motion was then made
to strike out the testimony already
given upon that point by the witness
Lewis for the same reason which mo-
ton was sustained. and affiant further
says that it is not true that said court
in sustaining said objection or in sus-
tanning said motion. lightly. dispara ging-
ly, or frivolously referred To said testi-
mony. but simply announced his ruling
with such comment thereon as is usual
in announcing the decision of the court.
Affiant further says that in connec-
ton with the matters last above stated,
that the state at no time by its attor-
neys offered tn show or prove that said
defendant. Moody was in any way
party to. or cognizant of, or that he had
authorized any such statements. or
statements of similar character to be
made to the witness Lewis prior to the
time of his giving his testimony
Affiant further says that it is
not true that the judge of said court.
during the progress of the trial referred
to herein, ever at any time commented
upon the weight or effect of testimony
introduced and submitted to the jury,
but that the court may have COM
mented upon the character of the testi-
mony ruled out by him. but not upon
that which was submitted TO the jury
for its consideration.
Affiant further says that ii is not true
that the state will secure no remedy or
redress in the premises, and in this con-
nection atfiant further states that affi-
ant is ready and willing to proceed at
once with the preparation of the tran
script in the said Moody case as soon
as prior cases are out of the way or
at such earlier time as the said district
court, or this honorable court may di-
rect as hereinafter more fully set
forth
As Soon He Can.
Afiiant further says that he admits
that it is and was his duty to prepare
transcript of the evidence in the case
of the state VS.. Moody. and that this
atfiant is now willing and intends to at
once prepare the same as soon as the
same can be done, and will at once do
so in preference to the preparat ton OF
any other transcripts IL the same can
be done over the objection of various
attorneys for other cases having pri-
ority in point of time. Affiant further
says that there are now waiting for
preparation transcripts in the cases of
the state VS.. Schnepple and the state
Us. Dickinson, both of which We're tried
before the case of the state Us. Moody
The case of the state VS.. Shafe., was
also tried before the case of the state
VS.. Moody, and upon the urgent de-
mand of the county attorney, or his
chief deputy this affiant transcribed
the testimony in that case. comprising
about 440 pages. Affiant further says
that the case of the state vs. Dcken-
son was also tried prior to the case of
the state vs.. Moody, and that affiant
has prepared about 100 pages of the
testimony in that case. Affiant further
says that he could have had all the
testimony in the Moody case tran |
scribed by the 10th or 18th of February.
1898, except for the fact that upon the |
demand Of the present attorneys for !
II. n. Dickinson this af1iant began |
work on the Dickinson case upon
tue. "a day OF January, 1873, fully be- /
lieving that il was his duty TO tran |
scribe the testimony in that case owing |
to the fact that ii had precedence in |
point of time over the Moody case. AZ !
faint further says that he has frequent l
~ notified the attorneys for the prose
cution that he would have the test,- /
mony in the Moody case all transcribed \
prior To the expiration of the time for /
filing a bill Of exceptions. with which 4
the said attorneys always !
appeared satisfied Affiant further /
says that Department H. of said |
court i'm which afliant is stenographer, /
has been engaged in the trial Of Jury .
causes since about the 18th of the
present month. and that when said /
rourt il in session the same continues
IN session for about six and one half (
hours each day, and that this affiant.
when such court has been in session is I
engaged in said court and
AN only do and perform the work Of
ra I SpIiliup fRGtftY9ppz- DURING