The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-03
DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME
John j. Mason Found Guilty by
the Jury.
BEFORE JUDGE CLANCY
He Was One of the Robbers Who Held
Up the Reception Road House
Last July : May Get Off
With Eleven Years.

who held up the Reception and Foun-
| tain road houses on the night of the
9th Of July of last year, was convict
ed yesterday in Judge Clancy's court,
the evidence against him having been
conclusive. His partner, James Lacey,
will be tried to-day. The jury in the
Mason case left his punishment to the
court, and sentence will be passed on
him by Judge Clancy tomorrow.
The case against Mason, as well as
against his co-defendant, Lacey, took
sensational turn yesterday morning
| when County Attorney Connolly began
to introduce rebuttal testimony, and be-
fore many witnesses had testified it be-
| came evident that the alibi defense had
been badly constructed job. It fur
Their appeared very conclusively that
the fellow Lyons, who was the third
man of the gang arrested and turned
loose at the preliminary hearing be-
| cause he had several witnesses to swear
to an alibi for him, was really one of
the robbers AT Mason's trial on We'd
nesday a fellow named Deschaum and
another named Baer, the same men
who established an alibi for Lyons,
surprised the prosecution by coming
into court and swearing positively to
an alibi for Mason and Lacey, and the
county attorney was for a moment al
most knocked off his feet. The case,
however, took on a very different ap-
pearance early yesterday morning.
Bart Shay, a deputy sheriff, was the
first and an important witness in re-
buttal He said he had been detailed
to serve the subpoenaes for the de-
PENDANTS witnesses, and could find
none of them, so one day he called on
Mason in jail and read off the names
of the witnesses to him and asked him
where they could be found. Mason
replied that none Of the witnesses nam
ed were his and said they must be
Lacey's witnesses. He also said that
the only witnesses he wanted were
man named Campbell and another
named Mcdonald, who, it developed,
were not in the state. The significance
Of Shay's testimony was that at the
time he talked to Mason the latter had
not known Deschaum and Baer, who
testified that they were with Mason in
the California brewery from 9 O'clock
until about l o'clock on the night of
the road house robberies, which occur
red at IL o'clock
The next rebuttal witness was Roy
Alley, deputy county attorney. He
testified that he attended the prelim-
mary hearing of Lyons, Mason and
Lacey, and that the three defendants
had their hearing together. Mr.. Alley
took shorthand report of the testi-
mony and said that none of Lyons al
ibi witnesses ever. mentioned either Ma
son or Lacey, although they were par
ticularly asked to name every one that
was with them at the brewery at the
time they testified to. On the con-
trary the witnesses acted as If they
did not know Mason and Lacey at all.
Lyons kept away from the other two
defendants and pretended to be very
indignant when he learned that he was
to be tried with the other two men.
He claimed, and said SO in court, that
he did not know Mason and Lacey at
all, and through his attorney, Mr.. Mer-
rift, demanded a separate hearing,
which was not granted him.
Attorney 2. T. Cason, who represent
ed Mason and Lacey at the preliminary
hearing, was the next witness. Mason
had stated on the witness stand that
Cason did nothing for him except to
take all he could get. Mr. Cason said
that none of the alibi witnesses for
Lyons mentioned Mason and Lacey at
the preliminary hearing. If they had
he would have taken advantage of it
and endeavored to prove the same al
ibi for his clients. On cross-examina-
ton by Mr.. McClernan, counsel for
Mason, Cason said that the first that
he heard about Lacey wanting to es-
was after they had testified for Ly-
ons. Mason had testified that before
the preliminary hearing was concluded |
one of his attorneys, Burt Marsh, Sc |
cured continuance SO that he could |
attend a performance at the opera |
house. Mr.. Cason said he had no rec |
objection of any such statement being |
made by Marsh.
w. w. johnson of the county attor- |
ney's office testified that he attended |
the preliminary hearing and heard the |
testimony of the alibi witnesses, and |
said that none of them mentioned La
cey or Mason, although they were asked |
particularly to name over all the per- |
sons who were with them on the night |
of July 9 at the brewery. Lyons in |
sisted on sitting away from Lacey and |
Mason and declared that he did not |
know. them and did not want to be
mixed up with them.
County Attorney Connolly asked per-
mission of the court to recall the
alibi witness Deschaum for the pur-
pose of asking him an impeaching ques-
ton. Mr.. McClernan objected, but he
was overruled, and Deschaum was
put on the stand again, and was asked
II he did not say to Deputy Sheriff
o'Neil. when the latter served him
son case, that he knew nothing about
the case. Eddie Martin and a man
named Howard, men who were alleg-
ed to have been in the brewery with
Deschaum, Baer and Lyons, We're
present when Deschaum said he knew
nothing about the case Deschaum
said he aforementioned" making any
such statement. Deputy Sheriff
ONeil was put on the stand and said |
Deschaum did say that he knew moth
ing about the case, and said he did
not see the use of having him sub
Howard then spoke up and
said Lacey and Mason might have
been" in the brewery, but he knew
nothing about them.
Attorney Merritt. who represented
Lyons at the preliminary hearing, tes-
titled that he asked for separate
hearing for client. but it was not
granted, and the three men had their