Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-03-26
A CORRECTION
TO COURT STORY
Judge Winchester Feels That
an Injustice Has Been
Done Him InasmuCh as
All the Proceedings in the
Last Blind Pig Gases We're
Not Published

Judge Winchester feels that gu in
justice has been done him ine-the
Tribune's report of the trial of the
three blind piggers Tuesday in the
district court, inasmuch as one or
two details were unintentionally
omitted which, the Judge feels, would
not have made it appear as though
he were trying to SHIELD the defend
ants and the witnesses accused Of
perjury by the assistant states at
torney. There was no intent on the
part of the Tribune to advance such
presumption.
The report should have shown that
when the court was asked to hold
John W. Olson, the complaining wit
ness, on charge of perjury, the as
sistant states attorney stated he had
evidence in his possession which con-
WINGED him Olson had committed per-
jury, but that he, the assistant states
attorney, did not at that time wish
to disclose it. The court replied that
there was no evidence of perjury be-
fore him, the complaint not having
been offered in evidence, and if the
states attorney had such evidence he
should at once swear out complaint
and prosecute Olson for the crime.
Again, the account of the trial fail
ed to state that when the defense
moved for an instruced verdict in
the second case the prosecution ac-
quiesced in view of the failure of the
witnesses to testify to what they
had informed the assistant states at
torney they would swear to on the
stand.
Judge Winchester feels that the
above additions to the story of the
case are due him and the Tribune
cheerfully makes the correction.
In this connection defendants at
torney, George w. Newton, makes
the following statement:
81 have read the account of the J
proceedings had in the district
court in the case of the State
against Albertson and McDon-
aid, contained in the Daily
Tribune of March 25th, and pro-
test that the same is not fair +
and correct statement of what q
took place. 1t is true the state
failed to substantiate the charge
upon which the defendants
were being tried, but such fail
ure was not due to any fault on
the part of the state or on the part
of the judge. The witnesses
largely denied knowledge of the
facts which they were called to
prove, John W. Olson. with the
others. When he so did, the as
sistant states attorney asked the >,
court to hold Olson for perjury
saying in effect that he had evil
dence in his possession which he i,
did not want to disclose then,
that convinced him that the wit
ness was not telling the truth.
The judge replied that for him
self he had no such evidence
and therefore could not see how
he would be justified in holding
the witness, but if the states at
torney had the evidence init
mated it would be his duty to in
stitute prosecution, and he
should do so. / would have con-
sidered it very arbitrary and
unjustifiable exercise of power
had Judge Winchester done as he
was requested to do. I think he
did his full duty under the cir
cumstances.
In this connection it may be stated
that great many people in Bismarck
keenly feel the disgrace incident to
the fact that in the past it has seem
ed practically impossible to convict a
blind bigger in this county for the ac-
tual selling of intoxicating liquors.
Neary hundred trials have been
sAad here since statehood and only
two or three convictions. AS COM
pared with other counties in the state
the record is sickening to those who
believe all the laws on the statute
books should be enforced. 1t has
been openly charged that jurors have
been Influenced" in many of these
cases, and it has been common for
strong evidence to be introduced by
the stateand none by the defense
acquittals following. In view OF
these facts is it little wonder that
the last cases have excited no lit
tie comment.
On the other hand there are MANY
who believe almost any act that
would be considered criminal in 9TH
er actions is justifiable in a blind
pig case, therefore the oath Of 4