The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-07
STATE SUPREME COURT
Sheppard Will Have to Serve
His Sentence.
DECLINED TO INTERFERE
Not Sufficient Grounds for New Trial
Mandamus Denied the Indepen-
dent Company in the White
side Case.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena, Nov. 6.-Charles Sheppard
will have to serve his life sentence for
the murder of John Benson in Deer
Lodge county, Nov 6, last year, as the
supreme court to-day, just one year
from the date of the commission of the
crime, declined to interfere with the
judgment of the lower court. Shep-
pard appealed from the order of the
lower court in refusing him new trial.
This order the supreme COURT in an
opinion by Justice Hunt, affirms. The
chief error assigned by Sheppard's
counsel in the argument of the appeal
before the supreme court was the in
sufiiciency of the evidence to sustain
the verdict. In passing upon the ques-
ton of the sufficiency of the evidence,
the supreme court, after commenting
upon the method of practice in the
preparation of the bill of exceptions,
and otherwise preparing for an appeal.
criticises the record in this case as be-
ing fatally defective under the require
ments and practice The court sug-
gests asa good example of the best form
of bill of exceptions and form OF
judges certificate, that certified to by
Judge Armstrong of the district court
of Gallatin county, in the Sloan muir
der case. In commenting upon this
defect in the record of the case, the
court says:
But it is not at all clear by this rec
ord that there was no other evidence
before the jury than that included in
the record, and in the absence of an
affirmative showing of a connected mar
rative, or of positive statement. that
the entire evidence is therein, defend
ant has failed to avail himself of the
point lie would rely on
Following the doctrine laid down in
the case of the state VS.. Allen, as TO
the failure of attorneys to comply With
the rules of the court in the prepara-
ton Of specifications of errors, the court
says it cannot consider other errors
assigned because Sheppards counsel
had ignored rule X. Sheppards coun-
sci, in arguing before the court upon
the insufticiency Of the evidence, had
referred to the misconduct" of the
county attorney in the matter of con-
fession said to have been made by
Sheppard. 1t seems that in his opening
address the prosecuting attorney han
referred to confession made by the
defendant. Later, when the court
heard evidence as to the circumstances
under which the confession had been
made, it was admitted. After the intro
duction of the confession the court
withdrew it upon the motion of the de-
PENDANTS counsel, it appearing the coa-
fession had been made under duress,
and instructed the court to disregard
it. Sherpards counsel claimed that
this misconduct on the part of the
county attorney was reversible err
ror." In passing upon that contention
the court views the matter in a differ
ent light:
But, in our opinion, there was no
| misconduct on the part of the county
attorney in stating to the jury that a
confession had been made or in en-
deavorng to have the confession adj
mitted in evidence as a part of the
states case; indeed, in our Judgment,
two confessions We're admissible, and
1t was error on the part of the court
to have than withdrawn from the con-
sideration of the jury. 1t is unneces-
sary to discuss any of the other as
signments. They are deemed waived
because not argued. The judgment
and ord.r appealed from are affirmed"
The whole court unites in an opinion
denying to the Independent Publishing
company writ of mandamus compell-
| ing Judge D. F. Smith of the 11tli jul
Cicial district to grant the newspaper
change of venue from kaliSpell to
Helena OF the llDel suit drought against
it by Fred Whitesde. The court holds
that the mandamus is not the proper
| remedy. To the petition filed by coun-
sci for the newspaper asking for the
mandamus, the lower court demurred,
and this demurrer the supreme court
sustains, thereby Diminishing the APP
plication. ~
Granting or refusing to grant a
| change of venue upon the ground Of res
ldence is judicial act when done by a
district court of this state" says the
court. ''On appeal to this court from
the final judgment of the district court,
an order denying a change of venue
demanded by the appellant may be re-
viewed. hence We are clearly of the
| opinion that mandamus is not, under
the statutes of Montana, the proper
| remedy to compel a court of genera
common law jurisdiction, or it's judge
to grant a change of the place of tria