The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1909-12-21
TODAY'S SALOON NEWS
IN THE CITY OF ROSWELL

| There have been many conflicting
statements made regarding the Carl
| Leopold case during the last few days
in Roswell and to get an authorita-
| tive declaration as to exactly what
| evidence was presented and upon
wAat basis the case was brought to
| the attention of the court, the Record
| mas secured the following statement
| from District Attorney James NJ. Her
vey and follow it with the opinion in
| fun as rendered by Judge VIM. Fl.
Pope:
District Attorneys Statement.
In December, 1907 Carl Leopold
pleaded gui.ty to an indictment charg-
| ing him with unlawfully selling liquor
| TO minors; the court sentenced aim
to pay a fine of one hundred dollars
and costs and to serve sixty days in
the county jail and ordered that com
mitment be withheld until further or
der of the court; in other words, the
| jail sentence was suspended. Last
month a witness before the grand jul
| ry testified that in October of this
year, he saw two or three young men
| in military uniform go in the rear
door of Leopold's saloon, saw them
20 up to the bar, get drinks and come
| out again: that they wore blue uni
| forms. Another witness testified that
| last winter ne saw a boy about six
| teen years of age, whose name he
gave, go in Leopold 5 saloon and come
| out again in possession of a bottle
Of whiskey. Upon this information the
| District Attorney brought tne matter
| 70 the attention of the Court by fling
| n Cause No. $40, the case in which
Leopold had been sentenced a state
| ment in the nature of information in
| forming tae court OF the above tes-
| timony; thereupon the court, after
L
/ the facts. ordered the commitment
| which had been withheld, TO be issued
| for the defendant and ne was placed
| n jail. Mr.. Leopold employed counsel
| and a writ of habeas corpus was sued
/ out The petition for this writ was
| signed and sworn TO by Carl Leopold
| and raised a number of legal ques-
| tions, most of whica went to the prop
csition Of the power of the Court to
| order the commitment issued under
| the circ :I7nstances, but HE NEVER
| DENIED THE MATTERS CONTAIN
ED IN THE SWORN TESTIMONY
| OF THE TWO WITNESSES REFER
| RID TO. In fact the petition for
writ of habeas corpus raised no ques-
| tion of fact whatever except that the
record of the court was erroneous in
regard To the suspended sentence and
that the court sentenced defendant to
| a fine and costs and sixty days in Jail
and ordered the Jail sentence suspend
ell until tae defendant should again
violate the law in this regard; but
this Issue was immaterial in view of
the fact that the commitmen. was not
issued arbitrarily, but upon inforna-
tion that ne had again violated thS
law, and this information was not de-
/ MED by Mr. Leopold in his petition.
/ The real issues raised by the habeas
corpus proceedings were all legal and
not fact: if Mr.. Leopold lad desired
| to deny the matters contained in the
| two affidavits and raised questions of
/ fact he would have come into court
in Cause No. 80 and moved the court
to set aside its late order for COM
mitment on the ground that the infor-
! nation upon which il was issued was
| false or erroneous and the court would
| then have had trial of the questions
of fact The only question raised by
the habeas corpus proceedings and
the only question which could be
raised was tne question of the power
of the court to order a commitment
/ in Cause No. go and this question
| the court very properly. in my jIdg-
ment, decided against the petitioner.
| Mr.. Leopold can, in my opinion
come into court any time he desires
| and move the court to set aside its
order for commitment in Cause No.
tton upon which the court acted is
| false or erroneous and can secure an
opportunity to contest the Questions
of facts surrounding his commitment:
up To this time he has not seen fit to
do this and has filed no paper what
| ever denying his guilt under the af
fidavits upon which the commitment
| was issued. the above mentioned affi-
davits having been filed with the
court and the defendant having come
into court and contested only a legal
issue and thls tacitly admitting the
facts, the court could not be expected
to do anything but decide legal ques-
ti0ns and assume the uncontested
questions of fact to be true.
1t is true tnat in the habeas cor
pus hearing Mr.. Leopold was pat on
the stand and among other tnings
asked if he had ever violated the law
| since his sentence. to watch. counsel
for the Territory objected ON the
ground that it was not made a issue