The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-19
HE SUSTAINED THE LAW
Kelly and Egan's Demurrer Was
Overruled.
IT WILL COME UP AGAIN
The Question Is One OF Importance to
Owners ofBuildings in Which Gamb-
ling Is Carried on-May Go
to the Supreme Court.

1 The new constitutional question raised
| in the gambling case against Kelly and
! Egan was argued before Justice of tn >
Peace Trap yesterday morning and
the court oNerruled the defendants de-
murrer as to the validity of the law
and the jurisdiction of the Justice of
course, a ruling of a justice OF the
peace does not go very Ions way to-
ward establishing the constitutionallty
of the law. and in case the defendants
are convicted AT their trial. which Will
take place this afternoon. the question
will again be raised in the district
court and may reach finally the SUI
preme court. for it is of great import
ance TO owners of premises In which
gambling is conducted, as ander the
Law they are subject to fine of $500
and may be imprisoned until the fine
and costs are paid. The law does not
place a limit on the term of imprison-
ment and makes no provision that the
fine shall be served out in iail at the
usual rate of 81 for each days eoniine-
ment.
Attorney Healy. in arguing his de-
murrer, maintained that under the law
a man convicted of leasing his premises
for gambling purposes, and not being
able To pay his fine, might be kept in
y
argued that as the law limited jus
tees jurisdiction TO the imposition of
sentence of six months i'm the county
jail or a fine of 1900. he could not have
jurisdiction in the case at issue because
the anti-gambling act provided for an
Imprisonment for both fine and costs
which, even allowing the usual 81
day, would keep the defendants in jail
far in excess of the six months The
attorney also argued another point of
his demurrer that the complaint against
Kelly and Egan was indefinite. as ii
failed to designate the location of the
premises where the gambling was car
RED on. merely stating that they were
in Silver Bow county. whereas the de-
PENDANTS might have IA number Of
places in the county. As the acts COM
planned of were committed at No. 10
East Park street. he argued that the
complaint should state SO.
In reply to Mr.. Healy's argument Mr.
appearing for the state, cited
a supreme court decision i'm the case of
the state against Sullivan from which
he argued that the jurisdiction of the
justice in such cases had been sus-
tanned. He held that the intent of the
law undoubtedly was that where a fine
was imposed and not paid. the defend
ant could be imprisoned for the fine
only and that he should be allowed the
usua. rate of 81 a day to apply ON the
fine. III case the fine was $500. he would
be held In jail for $50 days If he paid
no part Of the fine. That would be more
than the six months limit of the JUS
tees jurisdiction, but Mr.. Connolly ar
sued that the law on that point applied |
only where a jail sentence and not a |
line was imposed He held that where |
a defendant was sent TO Jail in default (
q a payment of fine he was not gen /
fenced or imprisoned in the mean
ing of the law. bat rather was de-
tanned" until he should pay his fine. /
and during his detention would be al /
loved - a day 10 apply ON his fine /
Mr.. Connolly practically admitted Mir. I
Iteaiy's contention about the Indefinite
leSs of the complaint as TO the location /
# the premises and the court sustained I
he demurrer in that regard and over
'uled ii on the constitutional question.
The complaint was amended and the
rial of Kelly and Egan will take place
II | o'clock this afternoon.