The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1903-11-20

been wanting a fight and had received
it and that in view of the showing
made by the defense he had gotten NJ
more than he deserved. His conduct
during trial was also reverted to an6
admission was made that it had hae
something to do with the findings.
They said that they had noticed thai
whenever anything particularly dam
aging to the Shaw side Of the case
was adduced Bentley had grinned in
a malicious way, thus showing that
he still maintained his vindictive feel
ing toward the defendant and that
a desire to "get even" with him, more
than any wish to e the law enforced
was the motive that prompted him into
prosecuting the case. This, they ad.
mitted, had influenced them and had
conspired greatly to the benefit OF
Shaw in their deliberations.
Taken by Surprise.
A double surprise developed at the
trial of Joseph Francis Lathrom,
charged with forgery, which was be.
gun Wednesday.
Lathrom is accused of having passed
a forged check on Edward Lightfoot
of Laurel, on which it is said he Sc
cured a considerable sum Of money.
After the alleged fraudulent transac-
ton Lathrom disappeared and his
whereabouts could not be ascertained
until sometime last month, when it
was learned that he was at Hartville,
Mo. Sheriff Hubbard secured a requi-
sition for him and brought him back.
! When he was arraigned at the begin
ming of the present term he said he
was without counsel and had no means
to employ an attorney. Judge Loud
appointed Lou W. Chapple for the de-
tense.
The information against Lathrom
charges that the alleged offense was
| committed August 6, 1903. After the
states witnesses had been examined
it was made to appear that an error
in the date had been made and that it
| guilty at all, Lathrom had passed the
check August 8. County Attorney
Harris asked leave of the court to
amend the information to the extent
OF charging the commission OF the
SNFoooo IN tho Or n 0f A1o,1cf inSYf ao6
Of the 9Th.
MI. Chapple entered an objection,
which the court overruled. An oral
| motion for a continuance for the term
was then made. This the court denied,
but gave the defense an hour in
which to submit a written motion ana
the necessary affidavit in support OF
it. AIT the expiration of that time
the motion was renewed in regular
form and granted by the court.
In his affidavit Lathrom sets forth
that by reason of the permission Civ
en- the prosecution to change the date
of the commission of the crime with
which he is charged he vas taken by
surprise and consequently prevented
from making his defense. He also
alleges that he was prepared to prove
by competent witnesses that August
6 he was not in the vicinity OF the
place where the check is said to have
been uttered. Furthermore he claims
that if given the opportunity he can
prove by other witnesses that he was
not there August 8; that the witnesses
necessary to prove his absence and
consequently his innocence are all
residents of Yellowstone county and
that the motion to continue his trial
is not made for the purpose of secur-
ing delay or to impede the progress
Of justice.
The court granted the motion and
Lathrom will have until the next term
of court to prepare proof in support of
his alibi.
State VS.. Mahr.
At the rather abrupt conclusion OF
the Lathrom trial Judge Loud called
the next case, State VS.. Benjamin
Mahr, charged with grand larceny.
The defendant in this action was
arrested a couple of months or so
ago on complaint of Stock Inspector
Webb, who alleged that December Is,
1902, Mahr stole a stallion belonging
to the Montana Cattle company. He
was arraigned in the Justices court
and declined to introduce any testi-
.mony, permitting the prosecution to
make a showing of the facts it had in