The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-12
WINES AND BOOTH ARE
FOUND NOT GUILTY
The Jury instructed by the Court to Return the Verdict Under
Judge Clancys Ruling It Was Useless to Pro-
csed With the Case.

from Judge Clancy. and the defend
ants have been discharged. The case
came to a very sudden end yesterday
morning when the court sustained an
objection to certain evidence offered
and ruled that no perjury had been
committed. The court held that when
it issued a commission to one Run
nells or Ronald at Seattle to TAX the
deposition of Ed Laney, alias J. w.
Bacher. ne other notary had authority
to take the testimony or administer an
oath to Laney. Ronald didn't have
time to take the deposition and turned
the matter over to one N. w. Bolster.
who took it. The testimony given by
Laney is admittedly false. 1t was
used at the trial of Joseph Shafer for
the murder of John Hawkins, but the
court said yesterday that Ii a been
improperly used. There was a consid-
cradle distinction made. by the ruling,
etwee false swearing n perjury.
There had been some talk about the
likelihood of bringing another action
against the two attorneys on account
of the alleged false testimony OF Al
Ford and Eva Smith, a perjury COM
mitted i'm the state, but Attorney Gen
eral Nolan stated yesterday that no
such action will be taken, but the dis
bar proceedings in the supreme
court will be prosecuted. The ruling
of Judge Clancy was the subject OF
much discussion among a court room
full of attorneys. Among the In
terested attorneys who discussed the
case were Simon II. Stearn and Lou
Marshall, eminent New York attorneys,
who were visitors i'm Judge Clancy's
court room yesterday morning.
~ xAns alan nm O0l
at s o'clock the judge repeated his
opinion that no perjury a been COM
mitted, as Notary Bolster mad no au-
thority to take the deposition.
IF the court holds to that view 1t is
idle to proceed with the prosecution
said Attorney General Nolan. Il don't
care TO consume time needlessly with
the prosecution" He then proceeded
| with "A brief argument on the objection
made to the testimony he had offered
the preceding day to show the author
ity of Bolster to administer an oath.
Mr.. Nolan said he expected the de-
Tense would not deny hat a commits
sion was issued out of this court at the
instance of the DEFENDANTS; that the
deposition was taken by a notary pup
liz i'm the state of Washington, and that
the defendants introduced the deposit
ton at the trial of the Shafer case. The
defendants attorneys admitted that
statement as outlining the facts, ana
Mr.. Nolan then read sections 240 and
249 of the penal code, defining perjury
and subornation of perjury, as follows:
Every person who. having taken an
oath tina he will testify, declare, or GER
tify truly before any competent trl-
bunal, officer or person, to n OF the
cases in which an oath may by law be
administered, willfully and contrary 10
such oath, states as true n material
matter which he knows to be false, is
guilty of perjury.
Every person who willfully procures
another person to commit perjury is
guilty of s~ubornation of perjury, and is
punishable in the same as he
would be If personally guilty of the per-
jury so procured
Mr.. lola said it was unreasonable
on the part of the defendants to use the
deposition at the trial and now object
to ii as not being proper.
standing the fact that the commission
was issued to Ronald and the deposi-
ton was taken by Notary Bolster, the
action of Bacher, who made the deposi-
ton at the instance of the defendants,
was binding upon the defendants. The
moment he took an oath to TESTIFY 10
the truth and answered the interroga-
tories submitted to him his act was
binding upon the defendants. The alb
Eur01ly OF the DTcDOSltiOH tndt II ut-
PENDANTS are not bound by the deposi-
ton is too apparent. The gentlemen are
put i'm the attitude of blowing hot and
cold i'm the same breath. The deposition
they say. was evidence at the trial, but
il is not evidence now. Under the laws
of this state perjury was committed nc
matter where the oath was taken oil
the deposition made.
Judge Clancy again interrupted Mr.
MILAN IN Sou he still xCaS nf tho nnininr
that Mr.. Scallon had stated the law
correctly. and that while Mr.. Bolster
doubtless had authority to administer
an oath in the state of Washington. ht
had no right to administer an oath oil
take a deposition for use in Montana.
Mr.. Nolan then said that In ori,r Il
get the record of the case IN prope'
shape for presentation 10 the supreme
court he would make ;ertam offers t.
prove. and submitted the following:
81 iasire to offer evi,lens e to show
that a commission was ISSUED ca o.
this court, directed to one Runur,s. IN
Seattle. to take the deposition of one
Ed Laney, to be used Upon the trial o.
the case of the state against Shafer
That the deposition of the said Lane,
was not taken by the said Runnell,
named i'm said commission, u was tax
en- by N. w. Bolster. a notary public
in and for the state of Washington
and that the deposition so taken wal
Used by the said defendants upon thu
trial of the case of the state agains
Shafer.
81 also desire to offer in evidence tn
certificate attached to said deposition
with the notarial seal of the said Boil
ster. for the purpose of showing hi
official character as notary public. ant
desire to offer in evidence the statute
of the state of Washington, to SHOW
that he had authority to administe
oaths and to define what constitute
perjury in that state.
Il also desire to offer in evidence tn
records of this court. showing that
certain criminal prosecution in tn
month of October. 1891, was pendin
therein. in which the state of Montani
was plaintiff and the said Shafer. abov
named, was defendant. in which tn
said Shafer was charged with the Grim
OF murder in the first degree: that III
d1fap1apf Shafer inferpOSed a plea q