The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-06
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Three Decisions Handed Down ct
Helena.
A NEW TRIAL IS GRANTED
DIR. veno. the Healer. VIII Have .
Chance to Fight for His Freedom
Acknowledgements L.
Reversed
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena. Dec. 5.-The supreme court
handed down three decisions to-day. New
trials were granted to two men who are
now serving time in the penitentiary. DR..
"veno." convicted OF larceny in Silver
Bow county, and Mike Rolla. convicted of
murder in the second degree in Park
county The other case decided dealt
with the question of the taxation of lands
purchased from the state in annual in
stallments.
DIR. veno. alias Dickinson, appealed
from his conviction of larceny by obtain
ing money under false pretenses in taxi
ing $3.50 of Mrs. Gray of Butte after rep
resenting himself to be DIR. Veno. and
fraudulently stating that he was the
agent of the veno Drug company of Pitts
burg. Pa.
The judgment is reversed because Of
two particular errors assigned. Judge
Clancy instructed the jury that IL Mrs.
Gray parted with her title to the money
paid to defendant. he could not be con-
victed under the statutes of the state. The
supreme court. through Justice Hunt,
says that this was radically wrong, mas
tfth'l ~ III ottth . NV VI htthE ~
obtaining money under false pr~etenses, as
was charged In the information, 1t was
necessary to prove that Mrs. Gray parted
with the title to her money and not mere
ly the possession of II. The court also in
structed the Jury that they could convict
of larceny involving a trespass under the
Information which charged a larceny by
obtaining money under false pretenses.
The court says this was incorrect. and
that where the facts are stated which
constitute obtaining money under false
pretenses. there cannot be a conviction OF
larceny involving a trespass and taking
against the will of the owner. To sup
port this holding New York cases are
cited under a statute almost exactly sim
liar to that of Montana. The court also
says there was error I'm excluding certain
testimony introduced by the defendant.
The state was allowed to prove properly,
that the defendant was not the agent of
the Neno Drug company; but when the
| defendants counsel cross-examined and
sought to elicit from a witness admis-
sions of a contract entered into between
the defendant and the Veno Drug COM
pany. the evidence was excluded. This
the court holds was a reversible error.
For these and other reasons the judgment
IL reversed and "A new trial granted.
Mike Rolla. convicted of murder In the
second degree i'm Park county last April
for killing Serious Cortese and sentenced
to a long term in the penitentiary. re-
ceives a new trial because the supreme
court finds that some of the contentious
of his counsel as to alleged errors in the
trial courts instructions to the jury are
meritorious. One OF the instructions
which Rolla's counsel contended was not
I'm accordance with the law announced to
the Il men the principle that one must
exhaust all other reasonable means with
I'm ones power consistent with ones safe
-. .-., d. hAKnfai1a hafnTa taking
life even In self defense. This was claim
ed to be erroneous. as II re-
ouired the defendant to retreat or att
tempt to disable his assailant before taxi
ing his life. chief Justice Pemberton, for
the court. in holding the contention meri-
torious SAYS that "A nan IL attacked may
stand his ground and. IL necessary, Kill
his adversary. 'The right to stand ones
ground should form an element of the in
structions upon the necessity of killing
and the law of self defense says the
court. The refusal OF the court below 10
require the county attorney to place GER
tain eye-witnesses of the tragedy upon
the stand, which was also assigned as an
error. Is held to be a matter OF discre-
ton OF the trial court. The case is re-
handed with instructions to grant a new
trial.
In deciding a case appealed from the
district court of Missoula county. NJ.
I AGutlnGA :. NllEEOhAh ahN -, ~
preme court settles a matter that has
been a fruitful subject for discussion In
many of the counties of the state. The
question raised i'm the case was the right
of the county treasurer to tax land pur-
chased from the state In annual INSTALL
ments before the purchaser makes his last
payment and receives title. Many of such
purchasers nave resisted paying taxes un-
til they had made their last payment TO
the state. Mrs. Courtney was one OF these
and she sued the treasurer OF Missouia
county for the return of the taxes. The
court below found for the county treas
urer and an appeal resulted. The counsel
for Mrs. Courtney in the argument upon
appeal contended that the title TO the
land purchased from the state remained
In the state until she had made the last
payment and the land could not there
fore be taxed. as IL would be taxing state
property. which Is not permitted by the
constitution. Justice Pigott. for the court.
i'm passing upon the case, affirms the rul-
ing of the lower court and after scoring
the plaintiffs attorney for not following
rules s and 2 of the court practice. holos
that state lands so purchased are taxa
BILE: that the property of the state In the
land is the interest 1t has in II anterior 10
the payment of the full purchase price;
that this has not been taxed and that the
plaintin having entered into occupation
and made partial payments IL the owner
for purposes of taxation.