The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1917-11-08
Judge, Though Denying Dis
missal Motion, Upholds
Defense Contention.
CONFINED TO THREE
SPECIFIC INSTANCES
Defendants Case Will Begin
This Morning at COnven-
ing Of Court.

Helena, NOV. I.--Speclal.-An at
tempt made during the closing hours
of Yesterdays activity in the trial here
of Mrs. Nan Thompson for alleged vio-
lation Of the Donlan law in her relu-
lions with 14-year- old Lutte Pruyn. to
have the case taken from the jury
upon motion of the defense failed
when Judge Poorman, who is hearing
the case. overruled .the appeal of w.
L.. Murphy. counsel for the defense.
Mr.. Murphy's effort, however, was not
entirely without result. as. nron his
further appeal, the prosecution was di-
rectcd by the court to limit their
charge. as made in the information in
the case. to three specific instances
which occurred late in December of
last year.
These three instances are the fol-
lowing:
Specific Instances.
The agreement Of Frank c. Hall, for
mcr city treasurer of Missoula who
is now serving n long term In the state
prison for his part in the downfall Of
Lutte. TO pay to Mrs. Thompson so a
month for the care and support of the
little girl.
The exchange by Mrs. Thompson of
n set of furs given Lutte by Hall for
credit at the Leader store in Missoula
on an expensive coat which Mrs.
Thompson Is now wearing in her daily
attendance at the trial here.
The payment of s4S to Lutte by Hall.
- 4.
the Thompson woman.
Should Face One Charge.
Mr.. Murphy made his appeal on the
ground that a great mass of evidence
had been brought against Mrs. Thomp-
son by the state and that her consti-
tional right is that she is compelled to
face only one specific charge. The
court accedded to his opinion. but held
that the three instances to which the
state is limited all were a Part Of the
same transaction. and therefore could
bc considered rs one crime.
Mr., Murphy based his skiful argn-
ment for a dismissal of the case upon
briefly but effectively. However, the
court ruled that there was sufficient
grounds for tho case to be placed in
the hands of the jury and denied his
motion. The ton counts upon which
the defendants lawyer based his ar
peal for dismissal are as follows:
Ten Points.
First. that information filed in th'
ease does not state facts sufficient Il
constitute a public offense.
Second that the information doe'
not inform the defendant of the of
tense which she is called upon t.
meet, so that she may understand il
and that tho proof brought by tn
state does not give this required in
formation.
Third, that particular acts are no
identified in the information and an
not disclosed by the states proof. s.
that it is impossible for the defendan
to prepare a defense.
Fourth, that the particular act o
procuring is not disclosed and tina
the defendant cannot prepare dc
fenSc.
Fifth, that the particular act q
immortality charged is not disclosed b
the information SO as to inform tn
defendant as a person of common un
derstanding to know what is intended
nor is the proof offered 50 disclosed.
Sixth. as 90 whether the imners
purposes charged in the informatio
and upon which conviction is souSl
extended over n period of time or is
definite act of intercourse or othc
immortality is not disclosed. either b
the information or the evidence ad
duccd 1t is, therefore. impossible fc
the defendant to prepare u defense
that particular.
Seventh, that thcsgst of the offens
sought to be established. if there
any evidence tending to prove it at al
is supported only by the evidence I
an uncorroborated accomplice.
Eighth. that the evidence of the II
ceipt of monry or of any sexual acts
supported only by the evidence of q
nncorroborated accomplice and furth'
by the testimony of one whose NOR
depravity and disregard of the trul
make 1t of no value.
Ninth. that it is now impossible
indentify the money or particul
thing of value TO sustain conviction.
Tenth. that neither the evidence N
Continued cE Page Eight