The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1903-11-13
HIS HONOR ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE.
ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT
Higher Tribunal Acts on Petition Of
Defendants in Noted Con-
tempt Cases.

Judge Loud of the seventh judicial
district court has been cited by the
supreme court to appear before that
tribunal and show cause why writ
of supervisory control should not De
issued in the contempt cases tried by
him at the last term of his court. The
date for his appearance and answer
is November 25.
The matter which has thus been
again brought prominently before the
public is the one that grew out OF the
arrest of Carey P. Snyder, an alleged
highwayman, at the instance OF the
authorities of Kansas City, Mo. The
arrest was made by Chief of Police
Morse of this city and couple OF
Missouri detectives at Columbus, in
this county, Mr.. Morse acting in his
capacity of constable. Snyder was
the arrival of a requisition from the
governor of Missouri. Before the re-
quest for his surrender to the Missouri
officers could be honored Snyder was
released on writ OF habeas corpus,
but Immediately rearrested on another
warrant Petition for second writ
was made and Judge Lound granted
it, Before service could be made upon
Mr.. Morse, who was the respondent,
one of the detectives arrived from
Helena with governors warrant for
Snyder and he was hustled on board
a train and taken east.
The next move OF the attorneys
for Snyder was to institute contempt
proceedings against the. chief, County
Attorney Harris and Policemen Gar
nant, Salisbury, Hannah, Mowre and
Baker. At the hearing that followed
Baker was discharged. Messrs. Morse,
Harris and Salisbury were fined SIS,
each, and the other defendants $50,
the court having become satisfied
that they had wllfully interfered to
prevent service OF the writ. o. F..
| Goddard, who appeared for the defend
ants, gave notice of move for a
writ OF supervisory control and by
| consent a stay was granted until the
case could be taken to the supreme
court. Last Tuesday the petition was
| presented, and, as already stated,
granted.
Opinions Differ.
| How the matter will terminate is,
of course, subject OF conjecture
AS to the proper course taken by
the defendants to have their cases
| brought to the attention of the SUI
preme court there is diversity OF
opinion among the attorneys of the
| city. While none cares to express
himself definitely, some are of the
| belief that the case is one that does
not warrant invocation of the writ
that the supreme court is asked to
issue, thinking that petition for a
writ of certiorari would have been
more likely to lie than the one now be-
fore the court.
| While both proceedings practically
amount to the same, still there is a
difference that only the trained legal
mind can grasp and understand. Ger
! tiorari proceedings contemplate a re-
view of the proceedings had before
the body called upon to submit a
record of it's actions in certain
case, while writ OF supervisory con-
| troll goes little further and seem
ingly confers greater power upon the
reviewing court. The writ is some
thing comparatively new in legal pro-
| ceedings in the state and had its origin
in the mining litigation at Butte.
Until invoked by the lawyers interest
ed in those cases it appears never to
have been heard of in Montana, at
least petition of that kind was never
made to- the supreme court.
Is the Proper Writ.
Since the foregoing was written
w. NJ. Johnston, who appeared as
one of the attorneys for the prosecu-
tion of the contempt proceedings, has
taken occasion to look up the law in
the matter and gives it as his opinion
that through a petition for writ OF
supervisory control only could the case