The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-27

The supreme court yesterday issued
an alternative writ of mandate ordering
William w. Wilson, stenographer in
Judge William Clancys court, to APP
pear before the court at Helena at 10
o'clock next Monday morning to show
cause why he should not be compelled
to- prepare a transcript of the case of
the state against Frank Moody, who
was tried over a month ago for the
murder of Paul F. w. Kroeger, and
acquitted by the jury upon instruction
from the court. The state has been try
ing to get transcript of the case for
the purpose of taking an appeal, but
for some reason Stenographer Wilson
has refused to make the transcript, and
yesterday c. p. Connolly, the chief dep
uty county attorney, went to Helena
and presented the facts to the supreme
court, upon which the writ of mandate
was issued. The showing of facts
made by Mr.. Connolly is contained in
a long affidavit made by County Attor-
ney Stapleton, and the facts set out in
the affidavit constitute PROBABLY the
most sensational lot of allegations ever
presented before the supreme court of
any state. Mr.. Stapleton, in language
that is startling in its directneSs, ac-
fairly influencing his stenographer to
prevent him from getting out the
transcript SO that the state could not
take an appeal in the Moody case be-
fore the expiration of the legal time for
such appeal But worse than that,
Judge Clancy is accused of classifying
his court records so that they would
conform to his statements of certain
proceedings, and acting generally in an
unfair, biased and prejudiced manner.
The affidavit of Mr.. Stapleton in full
is as follows:
in the Supreme Court of the State
of Montana.
THE State of Montana, ex rel, Guy w
Stapleton, County Attorney, in and
for Silver Bow County, Montana, Re-
lator; VS.. William w. Wilson, Ste
nographer of the Second Judicial Dis
trict Court of Montana, Respondent
State of Montana, County of Silver
BOWS.
Guy w. Stapleton, being first duly
sworn, on oath, deposes ana says:
THAT he is the duly elected, qualified
and acting county attorney in and for
Silver Bow county. Montana; that as
such he has had charge, and still has
charge, of the prosecution of the case
of the state of Montana against Frank
Moody, charged with the crime of muir
der, in killing one Paul f. w. kroeger
on the night of the 25th day of May,
1897, which said cause was tried in de-
partment No. of the district court of
the Second judicial district of the state
of Montana, in and for the county of
Silver Bow, before Hon. William Clan
cy, judge: that John T. Baldwin, Esq,
is and has been associate prosecuting
counsel in said cause; that the said
action came on for trial on the 9Th day
of December, 1897 and after adjourn
ments from day to day, in order to Sc
cure jury. and after the Introduction
of the testimony on the part of the
state, and at the close thereof and on
the 18th day of December, 1897, counsel
for defendant moved the court to in
struct the jury to acquit the defendant.
for the reason that the state had failed
to make out a case sufficient to go to
the jury; that the court sustained said
motion and instructed and advised the
jury to aequit the defendant, Frank
Moody, to which instruction counsel for
the state then and there objected, and
requested that the court proceed with
the trial. which objection and request
We're both oyerruled by the court, to
which ruling the counsel for the state
duly excepted; thereupon, and prior to
the giving of such instruction, counsel
for the state requested the court to re-
quire counsel for defendant to an
nounce as to whether they closed their
case or not. which request was by the
court refused, to whic:l ruling counsel
for the state excepted. that there
upon the counsel for the state
moved the court to give other
instructions upon request of coun-
sci for the state, which motion
was by the court overrufed, and the
court declined to give any other or
further instructions. that thereupon
counsel for the state moved the court
to permit counsel for the respective
parties to argue the case 10 the jury,
Il. K1.l1 RI "A.
MED, to which counsel for the state ex-
cepted.
THAT thereupon counsel for the state
moved the court to submit TO the Jury
blank forms of verdict other Than the
verdict of not guilty. which motion
the court overruled, and counsel for
the state duly excepted; thereupon the
court gave only one form of verdict,
which form of verdict was drawn and
submitted by counsel for defendant,
and which verdict was to the effect
that the defendant was not guilty of
the crime charged in the information,
which verdict alone was given to the
jury by the court. with the instruction
heretofore mentioned: that the jury re-
tired, and after being out several hours
returned into court for further instrue-
tons. that the court thereupon refused
to give further instructions, stating
that the jury would have to find a YER
dict upon the instruction already given,
which instruction was simply to the
effect that the court advised the jury
to acquit. because of the insufficiency
of the evidence. but that the jury was
not compelled to abide by this advice,
and which latter part of the instruc-
ton was inserted by the court upon
the earnest contention and insistence of
counsel for the state. That the jury
thereupon once more retired. and after
some elaboration returned into court
with the verdict as presented TO them,
which verdict was modified and cor
rected by the jury by striking out the