Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-01-09
Case Against Mayor Patterson Dis
missed on Motion Of the State
s. 81 ss Last Night. &F5 # ID 555s &s5s : i
Evidence Taken Showed that Mr.. Pat
terson Was Not the Owner Of q
Il: The Building. #s 55.55 X
w. II. Sanderson Arrested and Held
ii $1,000 Bail for Trial in the
81 District Court n s.s /.
Order Entered for the Destruction of
= sss5 81 the Wheel Seized, at a rate
f. Sgs> n to be Fixed. st ~ 5:$5 sS5,i II

the Wheel Seized, at Date
: Sys, 5%}S h to be Fixed. "A, S5iaa iisal u 55$5
!. The ease against Mayor Patterson,
charged with letting a building knowing
that gambling was being conducted
therein was dismissed by motion Of the
prosecution last night, f &. & 5s ss;. ::
Il The case came up in Judge Winches-
ter's cham bers. Mr.. Miller for the de-
Tense stated that he had decided that
Mr.. Patterson would not take the staEd
and that the state proceed with it's exz
animation. {ii.. B.; 1;::s 34.. E 4
" Mr. Coehrane for the state said there
was evidence to hold the defendant in
the possession OF the state. He consult
ed with Attorney General Comstock re-
garding the matter and ut length moved
to dismiss the action. Both cases were.
dismissed. II 5,Ss,fs> Il = I, s.. n q. y 4
Bond for w Ell. Sanderson in the sum
Of ST 900 was furnished with: e. G. Pat
terson and 2. F. Wilcox as sureties.
Both were examined as to their property
holdings before the bond was accepted
h TEE DAYS DEVELOPMENTS. "
w. 81. Sanderson was arrested yester-
day morning on a warrant charging him
with having conducted a place of gam
bling, and was arraigned before Judge
Winchester, who issued the, order. San
derson waived examination and at sub
sequent stage of the proceedings was
held to trial in $1,000 bail, which was
furnished. ,% : : s1$ s&: :=f3:''::. b VI IL
When the Sanderson case came up,
to the temporary setting aside Of the
other case against E. G.. Patterson, the
state moved the court to order the de-
struction of the roulette table that was
seized in the building on Main street at
the time the warrant was issued for the
arrest OF Mr.. Patterson.
AT this time a bill of sale was intro
duced, transferring the offending table
from w. II. Sanderson to Ed. j. Berry
-
Mr. Miller objected to the issuance of
an order: for the destruction of the table.
He stated to the court that the table
had been seized as the property Of
Mr.. Patterson, and that the warrant had
been directed against him. He held
that the table, as the property of Mr..
sESanderson at the time it was seized and
not Of Mr.. Patterson could not be de-
5stroyed under the law, unless under
warrant directed against Mr.. Sanderson.
He said thatit had also appeared in evil
dence that the table had been sold to
third party and that the right of that
third party intervened in the case. =,
Thejcou entered an order for the de-
struction of the wheel by. the sheriff of
the county. The order was framed by
the attorney for the prosecution, Mr.,
l5oehrane, and after relating the facts
Iof It's capture and detention by the
sheriff and the fact that it had been
used for gaming purposes, directed the
sheriff of the county to destroy it in the
yard of the county Jail, by fire. The
time was not set for the; destruction, as
MIR. M Miller asked for time to- prepare an
appeal to the supreme court on writ Of
Ecsrtiorari. He said that the usual time
Of thirty days ought to be granted. and
the order was left undated, the date Of
the destru uction to be fixed later.
M Mr.. Mi Her excepted to the order for }
the destruction of the wheel. 8s;
Mr. Cochrane for the state then stated
ITO the court that IL the Patterson case,
the testimony of the witnesses Sander
son and ]. Fort would ind cate that
on October 5, the del fendant III the case
was not the owner off5 tho otf & tfending
property On the date the offense was
sconnpla lained of, While the transfer was
secret aud while on the records at time
comp plaint was made, the title Of the
property was il Mr. at tterson and while
the state might have its suspicion as to
the good faith of the transfer, yet this
was not an action for setting aside
fraud dulent fer, and 5iff the witness
would take the stand aud testify that
the transfer was bona fide and to itsa
bona 6de nature, the state would not
ask that Mr. Patter son be held
iller for the defense said that he /
gas not Inclined TO ygaiYe any Of hia