The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1921-07-15
JUDGE COMERS DEC kION AWAITED
IN THE She RIFF MARTIN CASE

AN = AAAA S0AAa
Briefs All Filed and Judge Conner Has
Same Under ,Advisemsnt No Time
Lost in Prepar9tieF.
Scobey Sentinel: The demurrer, de
PENDANTS brief on demurrer, relat-
,or's reply brief and respondent reply
brief are all in the hands Of Judge g.
d. Conner. and were SO filed well with
in the time stipulated. Both sides
are awaiting with interest the decl-
sion of the judge.
Brief on Demurrer.
In preparing the. brief on demur-
rer. Martins attorneys, Norris, Hurd
and Rhoades of Great Falls, made one
reply to the first ten charges, which
renly NAV be summed up IN one
statement. In it the attorneys main
'sThe sheriff cannot be removed
from office for acts sdone prior to his
present; term Of office.
To su5stantiate this they cite de-
cision from the state of California,
New York, Alabama, Pennsylvania,
NAL of the ofTenses charged against
Florida. Missouri, Tennessee. No de-
NAL of the offenses charged against
Martin are submitted, but the Courts
authority to remove the Sheriff for
those acts is questioned. They cite
decisions to the effect that each term
of Office is an entity separate and dis
tinct from all other terms Of the same
office.
The defendants attorneys, how
ever, do admit Of reverse decisions IN
the states of Louisiana, Nebraska,
and New Mexico.
In replying to the eleventh charge
in which Martin is alleged to have
appropriated a number of cases OF
whiskey from his own Office for per
sonal use, his attorneys demur to the
complaint on the grounds that said
booze was not under a search war
rant and he was therefore not re-
sponsible for it's safe keeping, and
that the evident intent to appropriate
the booze for his own personal use
does not constitute sufficient grounds
for removal. No denial is made Of
the appropriation Of the whiskey by
the sheriff.
Realtors Reply Brief.
The brief filed by County Attorney
Nyouist, Attorney Howard NJ. Levi,
and the Attorney General is master
piece in itself and completely sets
aside the defendants brief on demnr-
rer. II shows, beyound the shadow of
a doubt, that the decisions quoted by
Norris, Hurd ana Rhoades have no
bearing whatever on the Martin case,
each having its -.own pecuiaritles
which render them of no authority in
the case in question.
The prosecuting attorneys. citing
the respondents best apparent au-
thority, declare it to be one of those
"gratuitous opinions" an individual
impertinence, which, whether it be
wise or foolish, right or wrong, bind
eth none, one even the lips that ut
tered il"
They then proceed to cite decisions
in cases on IAN exact parallel With
the Martin c4se, disclosing that the
Supreme Court of New. York, Georgia,
Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, Louisiana
and Minnesota have ruled that:
sThe defendant sheriff had been I'M
interruptedly in Office since the COM
mission Of the acts complained OF. At
no time was there an interregnuIn. He
was, by the Constitution, to continue
in Office until his successor had been
selected and qualified. He was his
own successor, the identical officer In
both terms against whom charges are
preferred. It is immaterial there
fore, whether the offenses were COM
mitted during tn present or immedi-
:ately preceding term of Office
The eight decisions quoted are un-
;animous in declaring that the purpose
of the law is to remove unworthy,
corrupt, negligent or lazy officials, and
that the reelection Of such officials
to the same Office before their offenses
are discovered does not give sufficient
grounds for maintaining them IN of
fee. In support of this decision the
impeachment cases Of three judges
and one governor are cited, as well as
four cases of removal proceedings
against sheriffs for acts committed
during previous term. One OF these
many local people will remember,
namely, that of the sheriff Of Henne-
pirl county, MINI. It is cited that re-
moval is the only punishment permits
sable under the laws for the alleged