Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-03-11

|sQUASHEO
WRIT OF MANDATE RECEIVED IN
BARTLETT BANKRUPTCY
CASE.
THE ORDER IS BASED
ONATECHNlCAllTY.
Allegations Of Perjury Were Not
Specific Enough-Only Condi-
ticn of Mind Is Stated.

Judge Mediation appeared in the Unit
ed States court this M orninss with man.
date in the case of the United states VS..
Fred Bartlett. which was signed by Chief
Justice Melville w. Fuller. The writ re-
versed the decision OF the district court
and commanded the judge to quash the
indictment and dismiss the defendant.
The order of mandate was obeyed by
Judge Knowles this morning.
The order to quash the indictment is
wholly founded on technicality, the
grand jury finding the bill stating that
the defendant knew that he Was posses
sed of $4,000 in money not Included in
the bankruptcy schedule. instead of stat
ing that he was the owner of such an
amount. In passing upon the matter the
circuit court says:
There can be no doubt that at COM
mon law it is absolutely necessary to
an indictment for perjury to include d1-
rect and specific allegations negativing
the truth of the alleged false testimony,
together with affirmative avernents set
ting up the truth by way Of antithesis
This requirement is not one Of form
merely, but was regarded as going to the
essence of the indictment. II was consfG-
cred necessary to make such assign
ments Of perjury in order to inform the
accused of the nature and cause OF the
accusation against him. Section 1896, Of
the revised statutes, enacts the SUBJ
stance of the common law rule III this
regard by requiring that an Indictment
for perjury must set forth the substance
of the offense charged. together with
the proper averment 20 fa!Sify the mat
ter wherein the perjury is assigned.
The Indictment in the present case
does not directly charge that the ac-
cused had at the time of making his arff-
davit, property other than that which
was described in his schedule. 1t alleges
that he knew that his affidavit was not
true and that he knew that he was the
owner of the sum of $4,000 in addition to
what was mentioned in his schedule. This
is not an allegation that the accused
owned $1,000 above what was mentioned
in the schedule. 1t is contended that it
is equivalent to such an allegation be-
cause it may be reasoned that he had
the money from the alleg ltion that he
knew he had it, or in other words that
he could not have known he had it unless
he had it. The facts material to be
charged in an Indictment must BE stated
clearly and explicitly and must not be
left to the intendment or reached by
way of inference or argument. The in
dictment in this instance states no Ill
innate fact in regard TO the ownership
Of the $4,000 or even rs to it's existence
1t states only a condition of the mind
of the accused, knowletga that he is said
to have possessed. This is aoS sufli-
Gent"
In the case of the Joshua Henry Ma
chine works VS.. John .. Bremen, Judge
Knowles this morning signed an order
for the transfer Of rna Exhibits in the
case to- San Francisco.
The demurrer in the case Of Sweeney
against the Northern Pacific company
was set for hearing April /.
The account of c. L. Wool United
States commissioner, was approved.
William G. Marsh was finally discharg-
ed from bankruptcy.
J. A. Spencer was sldiudgei bank
rupt and his case was referred to