The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-30
EDITH SOMMERS GUILTY
A Surprising Verdict Brought In
by the Jury.
Is FOR PETTY LARCENY
An Appeal to Be Taken by Her oalena
Street Backers-A Bill of Exceptions
Filed In the wines-Booth eubor-
nation of Perjury Case.

The jury In the case against Edith
Sommers, after having been out about
q hours, came into court at 2 o'clock
yesterday afternoon with a verdict md
ing the notorious CRATER guilty of petty
larceny, leaving the punishment to be
fixed by the court. The woman had
taken s145 from job McAllister, and
the jury evidently believed it. or they
could not have found her guilty at all.
Under the verdict she may be fined in
any sum under $500. or be sentenced to
the county Jail for any period under six
months. Her attorneys asked for and
were granted 10 days in which TO file a
bill of exceptions, n as she and her
Galena street hacker have doubtless
made enough money out of her voca-
ton to pay the expenses OF IL, an APP
peal will probably be X and she will
not likely be required to pay q fine or
do a term in Jail for a long tim yet.
Attorney General Nolan yesterday
submitted to the court a bill Of excep-
lions in the Wines and Booth suborna-
ton of perjury case. 1t sets up the
facts of the proceedings at the trial
which resulted in a verdict of not gull
ty under the courts instructions, be-
cause the deposition of Ed Laney, for
which a commission had been Issued
to j. T. Ronald, a been taken by
N. w. Bolster. a notary, who had not
been authorized to take IT. The bill of
exceptions relates that in connection
with the commission sent to Seattle.
there was a certain stipulation signed,
however. only by the chief deputy
county attorney. which provided that
in the event that Ronald could not take
the deposition he might designate some
other person to take it. and Bolster was
delegated by him to take Laney's depo-
sition. 1t was so taken and used at
the trial of Joseph Shafer by Wines
and Booth. Upon the trial against
Wines and Booth evidence was intro
duced to show that James w. Bacher
went to Seattle and imp~ersonated
Laney. and that he did so at the insti-
cation and solicitation Of Wines and
Booth. Evidence was likewise sought
to be introduced to show hat N. w
Bolster was a notary public under the
laws of the state of washington and
authorized and empowered to admins
ter oaths. The evidence was objected
to and sustained by the court for the
reason that the deposition of Laney
could only be taken before the COM
mission named by the court, and that
an oath administered by any other
IMAM 1NbEdlu III tdhiIE IL htpooitiOi
could not be made the basis of a prose-
cution for perjury. The deposition
taken by Bolster was the sole basis of
the prosecution for s~ubornation of per-
jury, and if the oath administered by
him was not a legal oath. the prosecu-
ton could not be successfully conduct
ed. Under the ruling of the court, the
state refused to introduce further tes-
timony and the court thereupon direct
ed h jury to return a verdict OF not
guilty.
A bill of exceptions on an appeal TO
the supreme court i'm the case of the
state against James d. Casey was filed
in court yesterday. Casey was a mem
Der of the old Clancy gang of robbers
and a friend and associate of Thomas
Franey and Frank Moody. He was
convicted and sentenced for a long term
for holding up a lot of men in the Pine
Tree saloon, or Laborers' Exchange sa-
loon. on East ark street, which crime
Clancy afterwards claimed that he
committed instead of Casey. The bill
of exceptions sets out a synopsis of the
testimony to show that Casey was
never identified as one of the robbers.
and thai the evidence did not justify
the jury's verdict. None of the men
in the saloon would positively testify
that they identified Casey as the rob-
Der. but they said they were morally
certain"
Clara Bell. charged with rolling a
man on the row. pleaded not guilty
yesterday and demanded a trial sepa-
rate from her co-defendant. Charles
Bankson. If she is as fortunate as
Edith Sommers in getting a sympa-
thetic Jury, she is not in much danger
of going to the ~penitentiarv.
]. p. wenrich pleaded not guilty to
the charge of criminal libel and his case
was set for trial July 8. The trial OF
Bert Porter, for burglary, was set for
July rs.
The sheriff of Cascade county made
a return on the execution issued
against the defendant In the divorce
case of Mabel Ludwig against Henry
W. Ludwig that he could find no prop
erty of any kind belonging to the de
PENDANT upon which TO make a levy,
and the execution was therefore re-
turned unsatisfed. Mrs. Ludwig then
made another affidavit that her ali
mony and counsel fees were still un-
paid, and petitioned the court for an
order requiring the defendant to show
cause why he should not be punished
for contempt, n Ludwig will now be
brought back from Cascade to explain
why he does not comply with the order
of court.
Matte A. Norton yesterday COM
menced a suit for divorce against John
f. Norton, to whom she was married
at Syracuse. N. Y, on Feb. IL, 1883.
She says In her complaint that she has
been a resident of the state for three
years and that on May %. 1897, the de-
PENDANT left her and has since lived
separate and apart from her. His pres
ent whereabouts are unknown. The