Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-02-01
Suits on Druggists Bonds.

A"S oA~ DAoESAoe S@SAA~o'
Grand Forks Herald: The jury in the
case of the state vs.. Stranahan and
Hamre, druggists of Park River, came in
yesterday at noon at Grafton and report
ed their inability to agree upon verdict
and were discharged by Judge Knee
shaw.
The verdict is disappointment to
both the state and the defense, as it was
the intention to make test case Of it as
there a number of others of a similar
character. throughout the state. The case
was brought against the defendants by
States Attorney Myers of Walsh county,
and he was assisted in the prosecution
by Bosard & Bosard, who acted as repre-
sentatives of the State Enforcement
league. 1850 ,~.,
The Importance of the case results
from the fact that in the majority of the
cases started for the past few months by
Bosprd & :Bosard as representatives of
the league they have brought actions
against the bonds of the, druggists in
stead of starting criminal actions, and
have taken the stand that if druggist
violates the provisions of his license he
forfeits his bonds to the state. A large
number OF these cases have been started,
but the case that has been on trial at
Grafton was to have been made a test
case, and it is therefore regretted that
the jury could not have come to some
agreement that the case might have been
appealed to the supreme court, which
would have been done no matter which
side had lost. E. Smith Peterson was in
charge of the defense and was assisted
by Templeton & Rex of this city.
The defense made the contention that
the bonds would not be forfeited though
the provisions of the license had been
violated, and that nominal damages only
could be recovered. Judge Kneeshaw
took the same view of the matter and in
structed the Jury that in< n<$returning a
verdict, if it was against the defense
should be assessed. In support of this
contention the defense cited number oi
Kansas coses, in which the druggists bad
been prosecuted and convicted of the il.
legal sale of liquor and had paid the fine
imposed. Later their bonds had been
sued, the state making the same conten:
tion-that as the provisions OF the bonds
had been violated they should be for
feited to the state but the Kansas su
preme court held that the bonds were
given to protect the state in case the
druggists violated the provisions Of theil
licenses and were convicted and refused
to pay the fine imposed as well as costs
S and that in such cases the bonds were
good for such fines and costs and moth
ing more. Following that same ruling
on the case that has Just been on trial al
i Grafton, even if the jury had been Of Hi
opinion that defendants had violated
\ their license, no verdict for any but |
numinal sum could have been returned
Templeton s Rex have a numbera
least Ave exactly similar cases, anr
there are d great many more in various
parts Of the state. and the next case tha
comes up viii be followed very closely
as il will be taken to the supreme cour
as . test case. II is understood tina
3 some Of the Judges Of the state do no
take the same position as that taken b,
Judge KneeshaW. and il the test cas-
& q comes up before one Of these judges th
outcome of the trial ID the lower cour
may be different.
Deserted Children.