The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-22
COULDN'T MAKE 1T STICK.
The Case Against James H. Lynch Was
Dismissed.

Dismissed.
The incidents out of which last
weeks police investigation grew were
rehashed in the police court yester-
day in the trial of James H. Lynch on
a charge of resisting arrest. The final
outcome of the case was that it was
dismissed on the motion of the prose-
cutting attorney. a fact which reflects
precious little credit upon those who
voted against the police committees
report, recommending the suspension
of officer O'Meara, at the last council
meeting and which places them in
rather unenviahle light, since, if Off
Ger O'Meara did not deserve suspen-
sion, Lynch was guilty, and vice versa.
The whole proceedings tended to sup
port the majority report of the police
committee. The case began with Off
Ger Sheehy attempting to arrest one
James Gill He said Lynch interfered
with him, and an hour or two after
the Gill affair he took O'Meara and
went to Lynchs place to arrest him,
as was shown without a warrant, in
itself an unlawful act on the part of
both officers.
Lynch was booked for interfering
with an officer in the discharge of his
duty. but when the case came to trial
the complaint was changed and the
defendant was charged with resisting
arrest and on this charge the defend
ant was tried.
Manifestly, If there was not suffi
cient evidence against Lynch to war;
rant trying him for interfering with
an officer in the discharge of his duty
there was no excuse for prosecuting
him for resisting arrest, for the very
good reason that if he did not inter-
fere with Sheehy when he tried to ar
rest Gill and brutally broke the mans
leg, neither he nor Officer O'Meara had
any right to go to his store to arrest
Lynch, especially without a warrant,
and he therefore had right to resist,
although it was not proved that he
did.
During the progress of the trial the
facts relative to O'Meara's and Shee-
hys brutal treatment of Lynch were
recited by the same witnesses who tes-
titled against the officers at the inves-
tigation, while the witnesses for the
| prosecution were those who testified in
| defense of the officers. Each witness
| testified the same as at the investi-
| cation, and at the conclusion of the
| taking of testimony City Prosecutor
| Charles Little moved for dismissal, so
| little evidence was there against the
, defendant. Judge Terrell promptly
| granted the motion.
| And now people would like to know if
those who helped Alderman Britt keep
| his brother-in-law on the force realize
| fully where they are at
Judge Terrell disposed Of several
other cases during the day. Among
| them was a charge of maintaining a
nuisance against T. H. Merithew, the
trial of which afforded police court
habitues no little amusement. The de-
| PENDANT conducted his own case and
tried to show that the property on
which the nuisance was maintained be-
longed to his wife instead of himself,
| but his evidence was ruled out and the
old soldier, losing his temper, got up
and after addressing a pointed speech
| to the court, declared a man a id
fool for ever being his own lawyer. and
| that. as the court was "agin" him. he
might as well plead guilty, which he
did Judge Terrell assessed him $40.
Other cases were disposed of as fol-
lows: ]. Ferguson and Mary Smith
disturbance, fined SO each; Carrie Ar
mold, malicious mischief, discharged;
Pearl EastWell, vagrancy, 30 days;
| Thomas Foley, vagrancy, withdrawn.
|