Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1900-10-26
ONE HELD, ONE FREE.
Decision of the Supreme Court in the
Sargent County Gopher Tail
Frauds
One of the Decisions Affirmed, and the
Other Reversed by the Upper
Court.
Important Cases from Grand Forks De-
cided by the Court, Involving
Interesting Points.

The supreme court of the state has
affirmed the verdict of the lower court
in the case of the state against Robert
H. Stewart, who was tried on the
charge of fraudulently obtaining 60
pher bounties in Sargent county and
sentenced to one years Imprisonment
in the state penitentiary. The county
had offered a bounty of . cents upon
all gopher tails and provided that the
bounty should be paid out of the
county general fund upon the warrant
of the county auditor, provided that
the auditor might issue the warrant
upon the certificate of the township
clerk where the gophers were killed.
4. was charged in the indictment
against Stewart that he obtained
money by false pretenses, by means
of certificates falsely and fraudulently
made, certifying that certain persons
udu pleSelCcu d Cel lttlu uulllUS1 VI 81
pher tails. The defendant demurred
to the sufficiency of the indictment as
not stating that the false instrument
was signed, executed or delivered by
the person indicted and that the instru-
ment was not such one, under the
law, as could deceive any one. The
supreme court holds that these
grounds are not we'll founded, and
affirms the judgment of the lower
court, sentencing Stewart to the pen
ientiary. The court, in it's syllabus
of the decision, says that the false
pretense under the law is such fraud
ulent representation of an existing
fact, by one who knows it to be not
true, as adapted to induce the person
to whom it is presented to part with
something of value. The question of
whether they are adapted to deceive is
for the jury unless they are in their
nature so absurd or incredible that a
conviction would not be sustained and
the test of sufficiency is not whether
they would deceive person of ordin-
ary caution but whether they did III
fact deceive the person alleged to have
been defrauded. A false pretense
made to an agent of the person from
whom money is sought to be obtained
is equally punishable as though made
to him directly. The court holds
that the question whether the certi-
ficates was calculated to deceive is for
the jury and that the evidence fully
justifies the jury in finding that the
token was false in that the defendant
had not destroyed gophers in the num-
ber or at all as represented by the
certificate.
Another fraudulent gopher bounty
case from the same county is passed
upon by the court and in this case the
judgment ordering conviction is re-
versed by the supreme court. This
is the case Of the state VS.. Ryan. In
this case, however, the indictment
was for the crime Of forgery in the
fourth degree. Ryan was sentenced
to the penitentiary for one year. The
only question considered by the court
is that Of the sutIiciency of the indict-
ment charging that Ryan had uttered
certificate purporting to be signed
by George A. Harris, township clerk,
to the effect that J. A. Stewart had
presented 1000 gopher tails. The
court in the syllabus of it's opinion
holds that a written instrument which
shows upon it's face that it neither
creates or purports to create any liza
bility is not the subject Of forgery un-
less extrinsic facts exist which give to
it that character. The indictment in
sucn a case must allege the extrinslc
facts. The indictment is based upon
a certificate which standing alone does
not create any liability and is not the
subject of forgery. The court also
holds that the resolution of the county
commissioners granting gopher
bounty is entirely void for the reason
that it is not within, the powers of
county commissioners to offer boun-
ties from the general county fund and
tnat the pleading Of the void resolu-
ton in the indictment does not give
any legal force or effect to the certi-
ficate which the defendant is accused
of uttering as creating or purporting
to create any liability by which any
one may be affected. The allegations