Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-03-20

case Of the State against E G. Patter-;
son, which involved the nature Of the
proc ceilings had before Judge Spald-
ing as a committing magistrate pre-
liminary to the issuance Of the war
rants Of arrest, and the authority of
the magistrate to Issue subpoenas and
take testimony Of witnesses, which
will probably 60 to the Jurisdiction Of
the court and the validiay Of the war
rants, was the feature Of the case In
Judge spalding,s chambers this morn
Ing. Attorney Townsend for the de-
Tense opened the case by making a
formal demand for a transcript Of the
record and testimony in the proceed
ings had before Judge Spalding last
week. He said the defense desired to
make several motions in the case, and
that it would be; necessary to have
access to the record Of those proceed.
ings In order: to enable the defendants
counsel to proceed intelligently with
the defense. He cited the section Of
the law which he held was the only
one under which such proceedings
could be had, as requiring such testi-3
mony as was taken to be reduced to
writing and filed where access could
be had to- 1t.
Judge Spalding said no such pro-
|ceedings as seemed to be in the mind
of the defendants counsel had been
had in this particular case, which was:
the one against the defendant for
maintaining bawdy house, and the
first one moved by the state. Attor-
ney Townsend then asked the court
to- direct the state to move the case
in (which any such proc eedings were
had in order that the defense might,
obtain the record and be prepared to
proceed with the defense.
Judge spalding said the testimony
taken was before him, as magistrate,
after q complaint had been laid before
him charging the defendant with a
violation Of the law. Before proceed
ing to issue warrant he had further
Testimony to satisfy himself that the
issuance Of the warrant was justified.
He presented the complaint for the
inspection Of the defendants counsel
and after an examination of 1t, Attor-
iTownsend said the complaint charged
a particular offense on a particular
date and the defense was prepared to
lshow that the proceedings had before
the magistrate covered wide range
|of time and went into particulars Of
other alleged offenses than the one
charged In the complaint. He said
the defense would raise an issue both
as to the law and the facts in the
case, and desired the record in order
that the questions might be raised
properly The defense he said was
prepared to show that the nature Of
the proceedings was secret, that the
defendant was not given an opportuni-
ty to be present and that parties
having an interest Ia the proceedings
were denied admission to the hearing.
Judge spalding replied to such a.
statement afterward made by Attor-
|ney. Bangs to the effect that no such,
dental OF admission had been made.
Attorney Bangs said the defense
would raise that as q question Of fact
and was prepared to present afadavitss
to that effect. In long argument
which Judge Spalding afterward
designated as vague, Attorney.
Bangs raised the question Of the right
Of the Justice as a magistrate to issue
subpoenas and have witnesses ex-
amined in what was called a sstar.
chamber eding. z Under the only
section OF the prohibition law under
which such proceedings could be had,
as he saw It, the greatest authority OF
the magistrate would be to satisfy
himself that there was ground for the
Issuance pt 10 warrant and then issue
his warrant, upon which he might
issue subpoenas and proceed with q
preliminary examination.
Attorney Patterson for the state
said the question of jurisdiction did
not enter into the case and had moth
Ing to do with the proceedings at
issue Attorney Miller, assistant att
torney general, resisted the conten-.
ton Of the defendants counsel that
The defense was entitled as matter
| of right to q transcript Of the testi-
mony taken before the magistrate;
There was not ID, the law any re-
qnirement that testimony In such 4.
|proceedings be- transcribed. although
| II had been Transcribed and no ebjec.
tion would probably be raised to the
request OF the defense. Judge Spald-
ling said he did not think the defense.
entitled to the testimony as matter
lof right but he did not think any OBJ
IL.