Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-08-25
BREWERY CASES
ILBOUNDOVE
FOR TRIAL HERE
Judge Mclaughlin An
nounces Decision in 20
Bootlegging Actions.
PLEADS
O E
State Moved Dismissal Of
Total Of II Cases-Oth-
ers Will Stand.

After hearing AZ bootlegging COM
plants against John H. Mc1nerny
yesterday and four similar complaints
against J. H. McInerny and j.. N.
O'Keefe today Judge Phil McLoughlln,
who has been presiding over the pre-
liminary proceedings in the various
cases growing Of the recent raid
on the East Grand Forks Brewery
company for more than two weeks,
this noon announced that he found
sufficient evidence to bind the defend
ants over to the next term Of the dis
trict court in 20 Of the ~ actions
brought by the state; II had been dis
had already been disposed of.
In announcing his decision Judge
Mclaughlin said that Mr.. O'Keefe
would not be required to furnish ad-
diuonal bonds as he is being held I'M
der the McInerny bonds. In the cases
where he is not mentioned as a de-
PENDANT, only nominal blanket bonds
will be demanded.
It Is not thought that all of the
cases will be actually tried in the dis
trict court, inasmuch a the nature of
the offenses charged is rather uniform
in all instances.
-Four Gases Dismissed Today.
When court convened in the city
hall this morning, Defendants j. H.
McInerny and ]. N. O'Keefe were
present to hear the four complaints
sworn out against them Jointly, charg-
ing them with having committed the
crime Of bootlegging and with aiding
and abetting in that connection.
The cases under consideration were
Nos. 10, IA, IL and 16. The state Of
fered in evidence portions Of the tes-
timonyY exhibits, etc.. as in cases Nos.
37aand g, and moved to dismiss cases
Nos. 6, z, 8 and 20 on the ground that
they involved the same parties and
transactions as do Nos. 13, Ia, 15 and
16. h motion was granted by Judge
Mclaughlin.
The present status of the original
90 complaints Is as follows: One
conspiracy action was decided on
Thursday of this week and allowed
to stand; 20 bootlegging cases were
submitted yesterday and today, and II
have been dismissed altogether.
McInerny Addresses Court.
When the last case had been dis
posed Of Mr.. McInerny addressed the
court to request that the four charges
pending against Mr.. O'Keefe be dis
missed on the ground that it was un-
necessary to expose this young man
n his family to the disgrace of
further prosecution.
FtA4E - AASS1S AAS9 oAA Ill
time that he was engaged in doing
legal business" Mr.. McInerny said,
and he still believes that the brewery
work. as 1t was carried out In East
Grand Forks, was legal. I do think
that the complaints should be dis
missed SO as to avoid disgrace beins
thrown on MI. O'Keefe and his fam
tly. II it then should turn out later
on that prosecution would be unavoid-
able, a new case may be brought
against him." .
State Insists Complaints Must Stand
assistant Attorney General H. A.
Bronson replied to the defendant, as
follows:
These four complaints are essen.
tial because they raise the bootleggine
question on different planes and pre-.
sent different phases Of the question
@sTlTe East Grand Forks Brewery com.
pany is not. a. defendant in these ac-
tons, but Mr.. O'Keefe is the secre.
tary and, practically, the executive
Of the business. There is no doubt OF
his active participation in the bust.
ness, and therefore I cannot concede
that the state imposes any hardshipt
on this defendant. The state is In 8
position where it has the opportunity
to- determine the status of the brew.
Ing company as well as OF the boot.
iegg1ng law and we want. to be able
10 look at b crime from as many
3 points Of view as possible.
"Mr. McInerny should be only toe
glad to have the status Of his bust.
j ness determined. Anyhow, we insis
J that The complaint against Mr.. o..
\ keefe be allowed to stand as there /,
other official actively connected
with the brewery, before this court.
McInerny Questions Jurisdiction.
MI. sMcInerny made brief reply tt
the argument presented by the state
and maintained that the only cour
which could legally hold Mr.. O'Keert
IS the court by whose orders the seiz.
ure OF b brewery records was made
viz: the Minnesota court. The defend.
ant repeated the statement offer
heard during the lengthy preliminar,
proceedings that a North Dakota
court has no Jurisdiction in this mat,
ter.
Following upon this brief exchang,
Il OF views, came the statement by til,