Fergus County Democrat. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-1919, 1905-10-17
Parties Charged With a Violation of
Anti-GambIing Law Given a Hear.
ing in Justice COnrt.
MARSHAL BURKE IS DISCHARGED
Messrs. Fraser, hegersOn, Butler
and Slaughter Are Bound Over
$500 Bonds.

Last lnufSuay AFTERNOON justice
McFarland's court was occupied with
the preliminary hearing of the cases
Of the state VS.. Daniel Frazer and
Carl Hagenson, charged with the vio
lation OF the anti-gambing laws.
County Attorney Roy T.. Ayers appear
ed for the state, while Messrs. II. T..
Smith and Huntoon & Smith repre-
sented the defendants. The specific
charge upon which the prosecution re-
mitted or was conducted in the rear
room of the Big Bear saloon. Of which
institution Messrs. Frazer and Hagen
son We're the admitted leasers, on the
afternoon of Sept. 25th. The witnesses
for the state, Cyrus Sharley and Il. s.
Frost testified that they had played
stud poker at that particular time
in the rear of the saloon. The state
failed to show that either of the ac-
cused had knowledge of the games GO
ing on, but developed the fact that
they were proprietors of the place. A
| motion was made by the attorneys for
the defendants for their discharge at
the close of the states case, which mo-
tion was overruled and the defense Of
fered the testimony Of Messrs. Frazer
and Hagenson in their own behalf.
This testimony showed the defendants
to be the proprietors of the place
where the gambling Is alleged to have
| been conducted, but all knowledge Of
| it was denied by both Of the proprie
/ tors. The court held. however, that
| inasmuch as ownership was admitted,
| they We're responsible and held them
| 10 answer at the district court. plaC-
| ing the bonds at $500 in each case,
| which was readily given. The trial of
Messrs. Frazer and Hagenson con-
| sumed practically all afternoon and
| the other cases went over until Friday
morning.
Friday morning The case Of the state
against L. s. Butler WAS called ANA the
| state offered testimony TO show that
| gambling in the form OF stud poker"
| had taken place in the rear OF the
| Puritan saloon on OF ahJnt Sept 18th.
Again the attorneys moved for the dis
charge of their eli I'll, and again the
motion was overrulel. The defendant
offered no testimony ana was held To
answer at the trial term of the district
court on bail in the sum OF $500, which
was at once given. 1t developed in
the course Of the trial that one OF the
states witnesses, Bert Berks was
prejudiced against Bu.ler an, Slaugh-
ter and that he had avowed that he
| would get even with them
The next case to be heard was that
Of the state against Marshal Marion 7
| lya Yplai i.h f,,, t..
the afternoon. The testimony in this
case by the state was practically the
same as that offered in the case
against Butler, but the defense proved
to be so strong that the County Attor-
ney at the conclusion Of the testimony
| completely exhonerated Mr.. Burke by
asking that the court dismiss the
charge against him. The testimony
showed that while Mr.. Burke was an
owner of the Puritan, since a ccptng
the position of city marshal he hid
had little, If anything to Do with the
current operation of the place; that
during the alleged operation of any
games he was not in or about the
place and no personal knowledge could
| be shown; that he had warned the bar
tenders and those in charge Of the
place at divers times to not allow any
gambling to go on in The premises.
Proof OF these matters by the defense
was indisputable and the county attor-
ney acted accordingly.
In the case of the state against
Slaughter, the defendant waived ex.
animation and he was placed under q
$500 bond to appear for trial in the
district court. The bond was at once
given and thus ended thu first round
in the prosecution of the gambling
| cases.