The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-03-24
SATURDAY EVENING LETTER
(5y Justice J. e. Robinson.)

| dent of these good people presented
for my signature written pledge in
regard to my decisions under the
prohibition statute in case of my cleo
ton. OF course | did not sign It; and,
OF course. / was not elected. That and
some drastic decisions by this court
suggest the thought that some judges
may have secured and held onto office
oy signing such a pledge. The majori-
ty decision cites some early decisions
which stand as a reflection on this
court. In the Markuson case from
Valley City. it was held competent for
district judge on common nuisance
charge to convict a man In a summary
manner, without trial by jury. and to
sentence him to a term in the states
prison. 1t is hard for a lawyer 70 see
how such decision was made, only
as the result Of a pull which acted
like the force OF gravity, It is true
the nuisance was named a contempt
and by that name 1t was held Compel
ent to evade the constitution, which
guarantees to every person accused OF
crime the right Of trial by jury. Hence,
as we pray the Lord to lead us not
into temptation. so may we pray that
our judges be not led into temptation
by any pledge or any influence or by
the thought of reelection. Indeed, it
were well IL the constitution or custom
were SO as to remove all such tempta-
tons. / am free to allow that our
present judges are all like Caesars
wife, above suspicion, and that they
innocently signed the decision without
thought of it's political effect. How
ever. 1t would have looked better IL
the appeal had been decided when it
was argued. early in January. and
when we all appeared to agree that
the conviction Of the defendant was
.kr4w, - x&xr 80
judge to say a word to the contrary
and there was no good reason for not
deciding the case when IL was fresh
in the mind Of all the judges.
The defendant was convicted of a
second common nuisance under the
prohibition statute. His sentence Is
two years in the states prison. The
on a complaint or information which
is fatally defective. A valid complaint
for a second offense must state facts
showing the commission Of q first of
tense, because without a first offense,
there cannot be second offense. and
it must show that each offenSe was
committed within three years, because
after the lapse of three years the law
does not permit prosecution based
on any offense, except murder. 1t Is
contrary to the policy of the law and
the welfare of society to permit the
raking up or OLD sores ana stale mat
ters outlawed by statute.
So far as II concerns the first of
Tense the information Is in these
words:
That on or about Feb. 8. 1908. the
said defendant was arraiRned In the
district court of Williams county,
North Dakota. charged with the crime
Of keeping and maintaining q common
nuisance in the county of Williams in
the state of North Dakota: that this
said action was brought on for trial
and verdict of guilty returned by the
Jury on or about Feb. Is. 1908, and the
said defendant was sentenced by the
court on or about Feb. %. 1908, and
rendered himself In execution of said
sentence and that the said sentence
has not been modified vacated or set
aside"
The trial was in Ward county and
the alleged conviction for a first Of
tense was in Williams county eight
years prior to the trial in Ward coun-
ty, and we have no record of the alleg-
ed first conviction. There is no charge
or attempt to charge that the defend
ant did commit a first offense Of any
description. The charge is merely that
In 1903 he was convicted Of the crime
Of maintaining a common nuisance. It
does not show that the nuisance or
conviction had any relation TO the
prohibition law. For aught that ap-