Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1905-10-13

CASES HEARD
Charges Against Daniel Fraser and
Carl Hegenson Are Investigated In
Justice McFarIand's Court.
BOTH DEFENDANTS ARE HELD
The Case Of Marion !. Burke 10 eeino
Heard This Afternoon In Jus
tice McFarIand's Court.

The hearing inthe first of the gamb-
ling cases taken up in Justice of the
Peace w. T. McFarland's court yester.
day resulted in victory for County
Attorney Ayers. the defendants, DAN
iel Fraser and Carl Hegenson, being
held for trial in the district court.
Their bonds were fixed at $500 each.
which they promptly furnished, and
were released.
Make Strong Fight.
Messrs. Fraser and Hegenson were
the proprietors of the Big Bear sa-
loon, on Main street, and Mr.. Ayers
undertook to show that gambling was
carried on in the rear room Of that
place on Sept. 25. This part Of the
case was easy for the prosecution. two
witnesses, Cyrus Stanley and T. 8.
Frost testifying that they played IL
the place on that day. Both witnesses
tried their luck at the game known
by the classic name of "stud poker"
and as result Of his effort, Stanley
won $27, while Frost quit loser to the
tune Of $3.50. Having proved this
much, Mr.. Ayers rested, and the at
torneys for the defense, Frank e.
Smith and Huntoon & Smith, moved
that their clients be discharged on
the ground that it had not been shown
that Fraser and Hegenson were the
proprietors of the gambling establish
ment, or had any knowledge whatever
that gambling was conducted in the
back room. The prosecution showed
that the defendants were the propri-
etors of the saloon, and the motion to
discharge was Overruled.
The Defendants Testify.
The defendants admitted that they
were the lessees of the Big Bear, but
claimed that they had no knowledge
of gambling being conducted in the
rear room. The court found that prob
able cause had been shown, and held
| both Fraser and HegensOn, as stated.
The hearing occupied all the after
noon, SO that it was impossible to
take up the cases of Marion l. Burke,
l.. S. Butler and William Slaughter
until today.
The case of Louis S. Butler, one Of
the proprietors of the Puritan saloon,
was taken up this morning when Mr..
Ayers called a number of witnesses to
! show that on or about Sept. Is Stud"
! poker was played at the saloon. This
! fact being established, the interest
of Mr.. Butler in the place was shown.
| and the state rested. One of the wit
nesses called by Mr.. Ayers, a person
named Bert Bierks, admitted that he
had it in for Butler and Slaughter
and also that he had made numerous
threats to get even with them. His
testimony certainly did not strengthen
the case against the defendant in anf
degree, but Mr.. Ayers did not have
| to rely upon it. When the county at
torney rested, F. E. Smith moved for
the discharge of Butler, on the ground
that there had been no testimony
whatever connecting him with any
game played in the saloon, nor to
show that he had knowledge of gam.
ing there.
Judge Mcfarland ruled that when
it was shown that gambling was car
ried on in a place, his presumption
would be that the proprietor had
knowledge of it, The defense decided
to offer no testimony, and the court
held Mr.. Butler for trial. fixing his
bond at $500, which was given.
Hearing in Burke Case.
The hearing in the case OF Marion
l. Burke was begun at O'Clock this
afternoon, and the testimony for the
state is precisely the same as that
offered in the Butler case. The attor-
neys for the defense, however, drew
out the fact that Mr.. Burke was not
about the place at all, had no knowl.
edge of their being there. or that they
were gambling. although It is admit
ted that Mr.. Burke has an interest in
the saloon under a partnership with
Mr.. Butler.