The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-09-27
WOULD NOT INTERFERE
Kinder Will Have to Face the
District Court.
HIS APPLICATION DENIED
The Prosecuting Attorney was willing
He Should Be Turned Loose II He
Could Prove His Ignorance OF
the Stolen Goods.

William Kinder. husband Of the wo-
man who did a wholesale shoplifting
business In the Cornell store and who
served a short term in the county Jail
for petty larceny, made an unsuccess-
full effort to get out OF Jail yesterday
on a writ of habeas corpus. He didn't
think the state had been successful in
proving that he knew that his wife had
stolen anything and that therefore he
should not be compelled to go to trial
and defend himself against the charge
OF receiving stolen property, knowing 1t
to have been stolen.
When the case was called Kinder was
pleted her term in Jail about a week
ago, was also present. C. NJ. Parr APP
peared as attorney for Kinder and read
the petition on which the application for
the writ was based. One OF the
grounds alleged was that an informa-
ton had not been filed against the de-
fendant within 80 days after he had
been committed by the magistrate. He
stated that that point would be waived,
as he had learned since filing the petit
ton that the time for fling the infor-
III TAU nut yet tldpStu Inc Ollti
point raised was that the evidence at
the preliminary hearing was not suf-
ficient to hold the defendant and that
no probable cause "A been shown. The
warrant upon which Kinder was ar
rested enumerated the articles stolen.
There was nothing but a lot of female
wearing valued at 1864. Mr.. Parr read
a transcript of the evidence presented
at the preliminary hearing, and also
quoted the law under which the prose
cution was conducted. He argued hat
one of the articles found in the house
Of the Kinder had been identified as
property stolen from the Connell store
or that Kinder ever had any knowledge
that any of the articles were stolen.
Mrs. Knowles was a dressmaker and
always had a great lot of dress goods
In the house belonging to ladies for
whom she vas working. Mr.. Parr
quoted court decisions to the effect that
a person must have actual knowledge
of the theft of the goods before he could
be held for receiving stolen property.
The state not only failed to prove that
he a any such knowledge, but also
failed to prove hat the goods found in
the house were stolen at all. The pos
session of the goods in such a case is
not a presumption Of guilt.
Mr.. Connolly. chief deputy county at
tornev, replying to Mr.. Parr. said that
If the defendant could account for the
possession of hundreds of dollars
worth of new goods in the small hou
they occupied and thereby eXculpate
himself from any knowledge Of the
theft, of course he should be turned
loose. Everything pointed to the fact,
however. that he had knowledge of 1t
and hat there was probable cause for
holding him to the district court. Mr..
Connolly said the presumption was that
the defendant had guilty knowledge of
the thefts and called, the courts at
tention to the fact that Mrs. Kinde had
already been convicted Of one crime
and was serving a term i'm the county
Jail.
In denying tho writ the court aid:
"To justify a committing magistrate to
bind a defendant over 10 the district
court ii is only necessary that the mag
istrate believes that there is sufficient
cause to believe the defendant guilty Of
the offense charged. The magistrate
before whom the hearing in this case
was had seems to have so believed. and
this court will therefore not interfere
i'm the matter. The defendant is or
dered remanded."
The county attorney has prepared an
information which he will file against
Kinder and his wife to-day, charging
them Jointly with receiving stolen prop
erty. Mr.. Connolly stated that the de-
PENDANTS would be given as speedy a
trial as possible.