The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-12

fed that they took brass castings to
the place of the defendants and sold
them, receiving Is cents for the goods.
On cross-examination Mr.. Bachelor
brought out the admission from the
boys that they had been given the
property to sell by one Goldwater The
state rested on the evidence of the
boys, and Mr.. Bachelor moved to dis
miss on the ground that the boys hav-
ing been given the goods by another
to SELL the defendants did not buy from
the boys, but from Goldwater. The
motion was overruled and Mr.. Bach
elor moved for a dismissal on the
ground that the city had not made a
case. holding that it had not been
shown that the defendants did junk
buying business. Again the motion was
overruled and on Mr.. Bachelor an
nouncing the defense would offer no
testimony, Judge Sullivan pronounced
the defendants guilty and sentenced
them to pay fine of $50.
In passing sentence Judge Sullivan
took occasion to say that it was
well known fact that junk dealers
make practice of buying stolen goods
from boys when they know the prop
erty to have been stolen. 1t simply
encouraged boys to steal, and he pro-
posed to do what he could to put
stop to it. Mr.. Bachelor gave notice of
appeal and filed an appeal bond.
The interest in the Blumpkin Junk
company case, which followed, center
ed In the line of Attorney Wines de-
Tense. The testimony was exactly the
same as in the other case, except that
there was no cross-examination. and
Mr. Wines at once moved to dismiss
on the ground that the ordinance under
which the complaint was drawn was
fatally defective and therefore illegal.
He pointed out that the state law
giving city councils power to pass an
ordinance to regulate pawnbrokers,
second hand and junk dealers, empow-
cred the council to pass an ordinance
prohibiting such dealers from buying
anything covered by the present ordi-
nance from minors under the age of
IS. unless the minor presented written
consent from a parent or guardian,
while the ordinance in question pro-
hibited dealers from buying anything
except old rags from minors under Is.
without reference to the consent of
parents or guardians The clause with
reference to consent Of parent or guar
dian being omitted entirely from the
ordinance, Mr.. Wines held, rendered
the ordinance in conflict with the stat
ute under the authority of which it was
passed.
During his argument Mr.. Wines de-
voted large part of his remarks TO
f1attering the court, but it apparently
did not have the desired effect, as,
after listening to Mr.. Lambs defense
of the ordinance. Judge Sullivan OBJ
served that he was too modest to pre-
sumo to interpret the law and pass
upon the legality of the ordinance. No
defense being offered, the court found
the defendant guilty and passed the
same sentence as in the previous case,
as before taking occasion to speak a
little of his mind. Il know the keep
ers Of these junk shops to be robbers"
said he, land l shall enforce this or
dinance, ] would suggest to these peo-
pie who encourage boys to steal that
they refer their consciences to that
portion of the Lords prayer which
says Lead us not into temptation "
Attorney Wines gave notice of ap-
peal and furnished a cash bond.