The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-09
LAvELLES BOUND OVER
Judge Donoghue Renders His
Decision in the Case.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
MIR. Duffy Immediately Applies to the
District Court for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus = Will Be
Heard This Evening.

Yesterday afternoon at o'clock
Judge Donoghue rendered his decision
In the case of the state against William
Lavelle and his wife, who are charged
with having obtained money Under
false pretenses. In his decision Judge
Donoghne held the defendants owe. 10
the district court and fixed their bonds
at $500 each.
1t has been nearly a week ago since
the case came up for preliminary hear
ing. AS will be remembered Lave.le
and his wife were accused of having
defrauded J. II. Bonenberger and his
wife out of $3.50 by means of the sale of
some stock and fixtures contained in
the Anaconda restaurant on Commercial
avenue. The Bonenbergers swore that
they had purchased one-half of the fix
lures on representations being made
by the Lavelles that the property in
question belonged to them. A sort of
partnership agreement was entered
into and a paper was drawn up by
which William Lavelle conveyed to j.
IL. Bonenberger "one-half the stock and
HxIureS that belongs to him."
The fixtures IN the restaurant We're
not at the time the agreement was
made nor at any other time the prop
erty OF the Lavelles. The state enaeav-
$3.50 ~ tit&N AlirtL ct tie tssIk' tue
transfer the Bonenbergers had inquired
as to what fixtures We're in clud ID in
the sale and that Mrs. Lavelle had
said All that you see here, clear back
to the Kitchen" and that her husband
mad supplemented this remark by say
ing, Yes, all but a few old chairs
The defense denied that any partieu-
lar fixtures had been indicated, and in
his argument J. II. Duffy. attorney for
the defense, called attention to section
2oSS, which provids that conviction
cannot be had If the false pretense is
expressed in language '.unaccompanied
by false TOKEN etr. The attorney ar
gued that there had been no false token
given and therefore the defendants
should be discharged.
The law upon the matter being am
biguous, the court took several days in
which to look UP the matter. In rem
dcring his decision yesterday Judge
Donoghue said that he had spent
great deal of time in reading up on the
question and had finally come to the
conclusion that the only thing he could
do was to hold the defendants over to
await the action of the district court
Judge Donoghue said that the whole
thing seemed to hinge on the construc-
ton that may be placed on the word
token" He quoted a definition from
Abbott, which is as follows:
"Token-a material visible sign of the
existence of fact. Thus, cheating by
a false token in perpetrating a fraud by
of some material device
Some cunningly devised false thing in
confederation of ones lying represent
tations."
This definition is accompanied by a
decision in the Indiana case of Jones
VS.. the state, and which is as fol-
lows:
Token, as used in a statute punish
ing false pretenses, signifies a sign
"a mark, "a symbol and the term
written token will include matter
printed or Autographed
As soon as possible after the courts
decision had been rendered Mr.. Duffy
prepared and filed in the district court
an APPLICATION for a writ of habeas cor
pus to secure the restoration of the lib
arty of his two clients. The application
will be heard this evening at 7:3o
o'clock. In the meantime the Lavells,
IN default of bonds. We're taken back to
Jail.