Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-05-28

testimony of the defendant and one of
his witnesses as bold, arrogant. flip
pant, verging upon the ~insolent and
defiant" Federal Judge George Bour-
quin in an opinion recently handed
down, orders the forfeiture and con-
demnation of the alleged booze-laden
automobile piloted by Harvey Noble,
Great Falls garage proprietor, during
the chase of November 8, 1921, which
ended in the capture Of the machine
after Noble and a companion had
abandoned it in a farm yard.
Several days after the chase, Noble
was served with a federal warrant
charging him with transportation of
Intoxicating liquors. He was tried dur
ing the last term of federal court in
Great Falls and after one of the most
sensational booze trials ever held here,
he was found not guilty.
Case Created Much Comment
Immediately following the trial,
Mobiles counsel, in behalf Of Charles
Zuckerman, alleged companion of Noble
during the chase, set forth a claim for
he car on grounds that he had a lien
on it and also that the evidence in the
liquor trial exempted the machine from
n hearing on confiscation. BY %stipula-
Iioh VI SVduSC1 IoI tut SoNtl uIItBit anu
for the defense. evidence in the liquor
case was submitted in the confiscation
case and Judge Bourquin took the mat
ter under Amusement.
Never has a liquor case created the
comment and interest that was aroused
during the trial of Noble. When testi-
mony was submitted by Sheriff Bob
Gordon and deputies that they had
seen sacks of whisky thrown from the
car as it was fleeing before them,
Mobiles counsel interposed a defense
that the officers did not see sacks
of whisky, but rather tumbleweeds that
were blown across the road by a brisk
wind. The jury accepted this version
and acquitted Noble.
In reviewing this phase of the trial
proceedings, Judge Bourquin says in
part:
TumbIeweed Theory UntenabIe
That the two sacks of liquors. later
found by the deputy, were thrown from
Mobiles auto during the chase is estab-
lished by a preponderance of the evil
dence. Interyenor's (Zuckerman) con-
tentiou that they had fallen from the
Buick 1.-THE other machine involved in
the case) and that what the officers
saw were tumble weeds blown across
the road and accepted by them for
sacks when the deputy appeared with
sacks found upon the road of the chase,
is untenable in view of all the circum-
ances 1t is believed the officers saw
what they testify they saw.
Everything persuades the flight and
ITS strategy was with knowledge of
the official character of the pursuers
and TO escape the consequences of
QnIIfv nnndurf Tho np,-,oI ELL lr-.
the chase started. They were on the
underground route for liquors. with
liquors, and beyond doubt were antici-
pating to avoid vigiiant officers more
likely to suddenly appear, thar high
jackers' or robbers.
IF Noble had no liquor. he had no
reason to fear 'highjackers.' and fear
of robbers was unreasonable. These
parties are not of fearsome nature. The
demeanor and testiomny Of Noble and
Stewart Ga witness for Noble) we're
bold. arrogant, f%lippant, verging upon
the insOlent and defiant.
The impression created is of I'M
trustWorthiness and discredibility.
Stewart and Ernest. another Noble
witness. had made many discriminating
statements involving Noble. Both sub
poenaed by the government in Mobiles
trial. only Stewart was called. Admit |
ting the statements aforesaid, he jeer-
ingly declared they were false and to
deceive the officers. and with gross
1~nsolence, and palpable f~alsehood.
sought to persuade that the officers
had been in negotiations with him and
Ernest for the officers personal ad- !
vantage in respect to the liquors and
this auto.
Stewart thus %treacherous. Ernest
was called by Noble. and retracted his
statements aforesaid. even as Stewart
did. 1t is noted the statements of
Stewart and Ernest ncriminating No |
BILE serve only to impeach their con-
trary statements at the trial, are not
otherwise evidence herein.
Did the Unnatural Thing
IF Noble had not known the Off
GERS. the natural thing would have been
for him, if innocent, strong in the con
of it. to at once call up the
to set both right, to recover
his car.
But he did not. He first consulted
Why? And only met the
after some days and without
or call but by personal
journeys, he says. to find him.
"Zuckerman's interest. his pretense
Of fear of robbers. for it is that. his