Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-10-20

PENDANT herein, was jointly charg-
ed by information with the crime or muir
der with one homas Franey; that the
evidence against the said Franey was
much stronger than that against MOODY.
n hat the county attorney elected to
try Franey first, and so announced in
open court; but that the judge of the
said court, in pursuance of what afiant
believes to have been his bias and pre-
JUDGE, announced that the county attor-
rey, or Els chief deputy, had already
elected to try Moody first. which state
ment was contrary to the fact. and the
said judge of said court, after the clerk
had prepared and read the minutes of
the court relating to the alleged prior
election. then n there, and in his own
handwriting. amended and faisfffSd rl1e-
said minutes SO as to conform to his own
statement. n so made said amendment
and Justification without consultation
with the clerk CT the said court and with
cut announcing the correction or amenl-
ment to the counsel at the bar, that they
might have opportunity to offer amend
nents or except to the same.
That at different times during the
course CT the trial of the case of the stats
against Frank Moody, counal for the
state ~endeavored to obtain the presence
Of the co-defendant of Moody, above re-
ferred to, for the purpose Of having him
identified by the witnesses on the part
Of the state. but thai the said court abso-
lutely and peremptorily refused to allow
the cO-defendant of. Moody to be brought
into court.
Tha one, of the witnesses upon the part
Of the state, who positively identified
Franey, the co-defendant of Moody tes-
tilted while on the witness stand as. to a
certain attempt made by one of the wit
nesses s~ubpoen,eed I n the part Of the de-
Tense to intimldate him, the satI states
witness, and to prevent his %testifying.
The name of this states witness was
Lewis. File testified to a direct and nag
rant attempt in the corridor OF the court
house on the part Of the said witness for
the defense, by means of threats and in
situations and menace of bodily harm,
to prevent the said witness, Lewis, from
testifying truthfully and to the real facts
on the stand. This witness was presen,
and within call. and these threats had
been made almost in the very presence of
the court, Notwithstanding which factthe
said court refused to Ahaye the said
~ N1NS vi LII LAG Pul :
pose of Identification, and referred light
ly and dispanagingly and. frivoiously to
the aid testimony as trifing and Of no
account or Importance in the casa and
Of his own motion, although said testi-
mony had been introduced without OBJ
lection and SO stood on the record, and no
objection was. hen raised to it. the
court struck out all of said testimony and
a~draonished the jury to disregard 1t.
That The evidence produced upon the
trial of said case showed that the parties
who committed this alleged offense COM
mitted the. same while attempt
ing to perpetrate robbery, and a the
lower part of their faces covered with
handkerchiefs. That during the examin
alton AMI in the course of the trial one
Of the witnesses ON behalf of the state
testified that o the morning following
the commission of the alleged crime Oh
murder and at or about the time Of the
arrest of the defendant, Frank Moody, he
took from the pocket of Frank Moody a
certain handkerchief, with creases and
marks upon the ends thereof, indicating
h such handkerchief had been tied to-
. gether at the corner inc ends. with tight
knots, being curled and creased and roll.
ed at the corners thereof, and that the
witness a then handed said handker-
chief back to Moody. This testimony
Observation-Disclosures objection, and some
time after the admission of said testi-
nony counsel for the defense moved thai
said testimony be stricken from the rec
ord upon the ole ground that the state
had failed to produce said handkerchief
n the thereupon sustained Said
motion and ordered the said testimony
stricken from the record on the ground
that the same was trivial and unffn&Sor
tant, and instructed the. jury oraliyrtt
entirely disregard the same.
AS other portions of,the; evidence on tht
part of the state We're adduced in tn
course of the trial, the court, on sevkra
occasions, undertook to comment ani
did comment upon the weight and effecr
of the same, in open court and in The
presence of the jury. Counsel for The
state, upon such occasions, objected t.
such comment of the court on the GROUND
that the same tende to prejudice the
jury and influence them against the state
n in favor. of the defense, and request.
ed that said mments be taken and re.
cordedin the minutes off the st~enographer
together with the exceptions and objec.
tons of counse for the state; but tina
the court positively and angrily and We.
hemently declined to permit either hi.
remarks or the objections of counsel t.
be taken down, or to allow counsel excep
tionS in such cases and instances, ant
wholly disregard every dictate of Judi
cial fairnesss in these and other &C
lions. + = =
STATE OF MONTANA, COUNTY OF
Silver Rows
Guy w. Stapleton, being duly sworn
on oath, deposes and says: That he i
;'ne county attorney of Silver Bow coun
ty, Montana, and the relator herein; tina
he has rea the foregoing pleading an
affidavit and knows the contents Thereof
and that the matters and facts therein
stated are true of his own knowledge
save as to the matters and things there
in stated m Information n belief, an,
aus to those that he believes it to be true
(Signed) GUY w. STAPLETON.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thi
= CGth lo ,, of To r,,tar wy A n 1000