The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-03-12
DIDN'T MAKE OUT A CASE
The Charge Against Constable
Rodgers Dismissed.
HE WAS DOING HIS DUTY
Saloonkeeper Keogh Resisted an Officer
and Member of the Police Force
Showed Very Poor Judgment
in Performing His Duty.

The trial of Constable Alex Rodgers
in police court yesterday afternoon on
a charge of disturbance revealed a
story. the line of circumstances in
which afforded evidence of a culpabe
resistance of the authority of an officer
on the part of a well-known saloon
keeper. and at least a case of poor
Judgment on the part of a member of
the police force.
1t appeared from the evidence that
on the 4th of the month the Butte Gas
& Coke company began an attachment
suit against Sullivan & Keogh, saloon
keepers at the corner of Main and Ga
lena streets, and that the constable.
Alex Rodgers, of Justice Burns court,
was given the papers to serve. When
he went into the saloon to levy the at
tachment Keogh, one of the proprie-
tors. resisted the proceedings and gave
Rodgers a brutal beating. Police Off
Ger Lyden appearing on the scene. ar
rested both the constable and keogh,
and charged them with disturbing the
peace, and it became necessary for the
constable to call on the sheriff's office
for assistance to execute the attach
ment The witnesses for the city We're
evidently friends of keogh, and quite
apparently endeavored to color their
testimony so as to favor him and, If
possible, convict Rodgers by saying he
exceeded his authority. and in their
judgment was drunk, but the defendant
succeeded in successfully dlsproving
both. and all that could be shown by the
prosecution. without successful contra
diction, in support of the charge, was
that the constable after being resisted
in the discharge of his duty and be-
ing all beaten up, called Keogh names
Il IL 4
shoot him.
Judge Burns who appointed Rodgers.
appeared as his counsel, and in adj
dressing the court, said he did not
think using the language attributed TO
his constable, under the circumstances,
could very well be considered a dis
turbance of the peace of Galena
street dive, and Judge Terrell, evident
ly being of the same opinion, dismissed
the case.
In another case heard during the
afternoon Judge Terrell found it neces-
sary to fine an obstreperous witness for
contempt. who insisted on using abu-
sive language.
The trial of Constable Rodgers came
up at o'clock in the afternoon
Policeman Lyden was the first wit
ness. He said he thought the defend
ant was drunk because he was in the
saloon. He arrested both Rodgers and
Keogh because he thought there had
been fight. but he was unable to give
a really valid reason for his action.
Neil McCloud. who claimed to be a
machinist4 testified that Rodgers came
into Sullivan & Keogh's saloon the
evening in question and after having
some talk with keogh about serving an
attachment. started to go behind the
bar. Rodgers slipped behind Keogh
who grabbed the constable and put
.,;, l. la, HI
opinion Rodgers was drunk, but he
could not tell why he thought so. Rod
gers was roughly treated and consider
ably beaten up in the scufi1e, during
which he attempted to draw gun. The
witness contradicted the last sentence
subsequently by saying that Rodgers
remarked, IF l had a gun I'd shoot
a hole through you
Daniel McJunes said he was in the
Sullivan & Keogh saloon at the time
the trouble occurred. Constable Rod
gers walked into the saloon and asked
for Sullivan. He was not in and the
constable said. We'll, I'll serve these
papers on YOU and laid some papers
on the bar He informed Keogh he
was constable and had come to at
tach the place. He said he would have
to take possession of the cash register
and Keogh said he could not come back
of the bar, saying that if he did he
would throw him out. The constable
replied. Il might put you out As
Rodgers went behind the bar keogh
grappled with him to put him out and
in the mix up Rodgers got much the
worst of it. When he broke away the
constable said if he had his gun he
would put a hole through him. The
witness offered the opinion that Con-
stable Rodgers was intoxicated and
when asked on croSs-examination on
what he based his judgment, said it
was the manner in which the papers
We're served. Asked if Rodgers was
boisterous, he said no, and if he stag
gered or showed any other of the usual
evidences of drunkenness, he was COM
PEELED to admit he did not.
Jack keogh. one of the proprietors of
the saloon, testified that when Rodgers
came TO the saloon he supposed he was
Joking and when he came back of the
bar the witness thought he was carry
ing joke too far and put him out from
behind the bar Rodgers did not say he
was an officer or read the attachment.
Rodgers, he said, used vile language
and, in his opinion. was drunk or crazy.
On cross-examination the witness de-
nied that Rodgers presented the
attachment papers for him to read and
he did not know why Rodgers was