Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-01-20
in SUPREME COURT
COURT HEARS INTERESTING
Il ARGUMENTS In AN ANCIENT
BLIND PIG CASE q

\ In the supreme court this morning
arguments were heard in the case of
State ex rel. Harvey vs.. Davies & New
ton, two appeals from Williams county.
Judge Lauder appeared for the defend
ants appellants, and Van R. Brown,
states attorney, for the plaintiff.
+ These were appeals from judgments
in which the defendants were sentenced
to pay fines Of $3.50 and be imprisoned
in the county Jail for ninety days, for a
violation of an injunctiona1 order made
in an action prosecuted to abate. public
nuisance. The action was originally
commenced to abate a place where In
toxicating liquors were sold and was
commenced by the issuance of an in
junction by Judge Cowan. This injunc-
tional order and the other pleadings in
the matter were served on the defend
ants. In due. time the defendants inter
posed an answer denying every allega-
ton Of the complaint. After the action
was placed upon the calendar for trial
the answer was withdrawn and findings
of fact and conclusions of law were
made Later, defendants made applica-
ton to the court for an order vacating
the injunction heretofore made. Several
years after Judgment was rendered the
defendants were arrested for a violation
of the injunctional order and on hear
ing before the district court the SEN
fence was pronounced as above indi-
Gated. The appeal is taken on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction over
the defendants and no power to impose
sentence; that he failed to allow the de.
| PENDANTS sufficient time after the entr,
| OF the plea before passing sentence; tina
there was no Jurisdiction to pass sen
tence for the reason that there was M
affidavit sufficient in law on which tt
base the action of the court. 5
4 +t n 1litllS CASCptiolI SScHlS 10 De Cakef
to a portion Of Judge Goss' Judgment
in which occurs the following mandates
7 1T is further ordered that the sheriff o
! this county the marshal or chief o
police Of this city, and every justice .
! the peace and city magistrate Of thi
city and states attorney of this county
under the order of this court, this da,
| made, prosecute in all respects violation
of the prohibition law to the same ex
4 tent and with the same vigilence tina
violators of any other law of this stat,
are punished, to the effect that the pro
llibition law Of this state, iii this partic
ular county, may be fully enforced t
! the letter thereof. RI {. IA
The attorneys for the appellant stat
lin their brief that they confess OH
4 inability to perceive the relevancy Of TIL
foregoing utterance Of the honorable an,
learned Judge to any question then be
| fore him. Here, to be sure, is undoubt
ed proof of a commendable zeal on til
part of the learned district Judge of til
Eighth judicial district for the enforce
nerit of the prohibition law within hi
i baiiiwick; - AS found in til
i judgment and as part thereof, we ID
not know what this paragraph means an
4 we are, therefore, obliged to- leave til
/ court to solve the problem without GU
assistance
4 The case of Fione vs. Fjone, an appe;
4 from Ramsey county, was argued by
Smith Petersen Of Park River for til
Il appellant, and ]. G.. johnson of Milto
for the respondent. This is an actio
to cancel a warranty deed for a quartz
3 section Of land on the ground of undt
!, influence and partial failure OF considei
8 alton. Judgment was entered in the di.
trict court for the plaintiff. Il he plairti
and defendant are mother and son al,
!. the action would seem to be in the natul
of an effort to retain land transferre
on a promise to support during II
4 balance Of the lifetime OF the niothe
~ anHEJKIfs