The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-20

legged that on the morning Of the 9th
he saw Judge Clancy enter H. L.
Franks liquor store about GAO o'clock
a. M, shortly afterward being follow
ed by Major John MaGinnis, the two
remaining there about half an hour. 1t
was further alleged that Judge Clancy
was seen about the streets at various
times that day. The object of this aft
davit, as well as the others filed. was
to show that Judge Clancy was not
making any attempt to comply with the
supreme courts writ
Blodgett was promptly arrested for
perjury. When his preliminary hearing
came up before Justice Nichols yester-
day, Attorney F. f. COrbett appeared
as special prosecutor, assisted by Chief
Deputy county Attorney Cornelius kel-
ly, while Congressman A. j. Campbell
and Attorney L. O. Evans represented
the defendant. The court room was
filled with spectators, who manifested
much interest in the proceedings. Oc-
cupying conspicuous places We're Judge
Clancy, Receiver Kinds. Major John
MaGinnis and Attorney Charles r.
Leonard, who appeared as witnesses.
The defense set up was that the SUI
preme court had not held the affidavit
upon which the prosecution was based
as material to the case at issue out
of which the prosecution grew and that
the purpose of the affidavit being to
show that Judge Clancy was not obey
ing the supreme courts writ, it mat
tered not whether Judge Clancy was in
H. l.. Frank S pla ce or elsewhere. so long
as it was shown that he was not per-
| forming his official functions. and there
| fore the crime of perjury had not been
| committed, even though it was proven
| Judge Clancy had not been at the place
| mentioned. Judge Nichols felt that
| higher court should pass upon the case
and bound the defendant over.
At the opening of the hearing Mr.
| Campbell filed demurrer to the COM
plant. setting up that the complaint
| did not state sufficient facts to consti-
| tute a cause of action, that the COM
| plant was indefinite and from it it
| could not be determined what allega-
| tons in the affidavit were false and
| that from the complaint it could not be
| determined in what way the facts were
| material to the issues to be tried or
| determined in which the affidavit was
| filed. Without argument the demurrer
was submitted and overruled and Mr..
| Corbett read the affidavit and submitted
| 1T in evidence.
Attorney Charles r. Leonard was
called to testify to the affidavit of the
| defendant having been introduced in
| the supreme court. He was asked if
| the attorneys for the Boston & Mon
| tana company had asked the supreme
| court in his presence to have Judge
Clancy held in contempt for alleged GER
| tain derelictions. Mr. Campbell object
| ed, insisting the records would be the
proper evidence. The objection was ov-
erruled and the witness told of the pro-
ceedings before the supreme court and
stated that the affidavit of Blodgett
was read before the court in support of
the motion to have Judge Clancy fined
for contempt for failure to obey the
writ of mandate. directing him ITO hear
the motion to discharge the receiver
Cross-eXamined by Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Leonard said he had no knowledge that
the supreme court had ever held the
affidavits filed at the time mentioned,
among them, the Blodgett affidavit, as
| material.
Receiver T. r. Kinds testified to hay
ing talked with Blodgett the day it was
| filed in the supreme court, and he had
| said he was the man who made the affi-
davit.
Major John MaGnis was next call
ed. He was asked by Mr.. Corbett to
account for his Whereabouts on April
9Th. He said he got up at 8 o'clock and
ordered Susie. the dining room girl. to
get his breakfast ready. Mr.. Campbell
| thought this somewhat immaterial, but
| the witness said he wanted to account
| for his actions in the minutest detail.
| Continuing. he said he did not leave
4 the McDermott hotel till after 10
o'clock He was not in H. L. Frank
| liquor house a $40 a. m. or any other
time that day, and did not see Judge
Clancy that forenoon. Crcss-examined
the witness said the last time he could
remember seeing Judge Clancy was the
day before; he did not see Judge Clancy
in Miles Finlens office in the McDer-
mott hotel that day: he never had a
rriX To OF H., I,,I
cy.
Judge Clancy took the stand and sale
he remembered April 9Th. He was no.
in the liquor house OF Fl. L. Frank thai
day and did not see John MaGinnis
that day.
How do you remember that morning
so Well?" asked Mr.. Campbell on cross.
examination.
4 had two motions to hear in the
case" was the reply. land did not have
any breakfast till after hearing them
Witness admitted he got down toWr
by $40 and took walk east on Broad
way, but did not go past Fl. l.. Franks
place; could not remember the las
time previous to April 6 that he talked
with MaGinnis. Did not recall having
a talk with Heinze and Heinze the Sat
urday night previous and knew very lit.
tie about the gentlemen. aside from
what he had seen of them in the reCeiV.
ership litigation.
Louis Frank was at the liquor house
the morning of the 9th He did not see
either Judge Clancy or MaGinnis in the
place that day He was positive they
We're not there al $40 a. m.
Attorney Leonard was recalled fol
further cross-eXamination, and asked by
Mr.. Campbell if it was not true that the
purpose of counsel for Boston &, Mon
tana in the matter before the supreme
court was to impeach Judge Clancy.
return and show he was on the stree
and making no effort to hear the mo-
ton to discharge the receiver. He ad
mitted that was true.
N. w. Simmons, deputy clerk and re-