The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1913-11-13
MONTGOMERY
CASE STOPPED
TRIAL OF WEALTHY HURON
MAN is ENDED WHEN IN.
DICTMENT is QUASHED
ON TECHNICALITY.

called white slave trial, begun at ms
term of the federal district court here
went to pieces in a collision with a
te~chnicality. A motion to quash the
Indictment against Donald ID. Mont
gomery, in which he was charged
with bringing Mrs. May f. Richmond
wife of a Methodist minister at Hur-
on, S. d., to Sioux City for an immor-
al purpose, was upheld by Judge
Henry T. Reed and the defendant was
discharged from custody.
Judge Reeds action was taken i'm
mediately after court reconvened at
$50 o'clock. Attorneys for the gov
eminent were first given a chance to
answer the arguments of attorneys
for the defense that the Indictment
returned against MONTGOMERY was in
valid inasmuch as no crime was di-
rectly charged.
Cannot Be Tried Again.
Through a maneuver of Attorneys
Sammis and Gardner, representing
Montgomery it is believed all possibil-
ity of his being tried again on the
same charge was obviated. Not until
the jury had been sworn, and a wit
ness called to the stand and sworn,
did they offer the motion to quash
the Indictment. Thus Montgomery has
been legally placed "in jeopardy" on
the charge and under the law may
not be again tried on it, according to
the opinion of most attorneys. Judge
Reed declined to render any opinion
on this subject in discharging the de-
PENDANT.
The motion to quash the indict-
ment did not come as a surprise. 1t
had been whispered about the court
for several days-even before the
Murphy triyl had ended-that the
government was afraid of it's indict-
ment against Montgomery, and had
been trying to get a Indictment
from the grand jury, at the present
session. Witnesses in the case were
known to have been taken before the
grand jury. No new Indictment was
returned and it vas supposed thai
the grand jury had refused to re
indict.
No Specific Charge.
The ground on which the defense
attacked the indictment against Mon
> gomery VS. that it failed to max,
the specific charge that he caused
Mrs. May #. Montgomery to be trans
, ported in interstate commerce for al
immoral purpose in violation of TIN
, Mann act.
Two of the three counts in the in
dictent had been dismissed by tn
J government before the ease came t.
t trial. The defense withheld it's attacl
until there was but one count re
@ naming, and until the defendant ha'
e been placed Gin jeopardy. 1t wa
feared by the government hat tn
one count was also defective, blu
q since the grand jury had refused t
Il indict Montgomery there RENAME
no purse open except to dismiss tn
r case or to go to trial on a weak in
q dictment.
The count on which they did go t
trial charges Montgomery with 'pel
: suading, inducing and enticing on
v Mrs. May F. Richmond, to go wit
$ him from the city or Huron, throug
n the western division of the norther
district of Iowa, to the city of Siou
e City, for an immoral purpose"
1t was held by attorneys for tn
It defense that the language of the il
j. dictment charged that Montgomer
only caused the woman to be carrie
g in interstate m within til
northern district of Iowa. Judge Rec
) took a similar view of the matter an
stated that he could see no other WI
in which to view the Indictment.
Judge Reed asserted that an essel
tial transportation in interstate cor
merce be alleged.
at is so alleged" said Judge Va
Wagenen.
II do not SO read it," replied II
- court.
A number of other objections of
Is technical nature were read into Il
record by the defendants attorney
There was no allegation in the i
dictment, the court held. either dire
al or by inference that she was trar
is ported in interstate commert
n Through the northern district
he Iowa was unnecessary language,
to the judge declared. To go on with t
lr- trial of the case would only be p,