Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-02-28

Special 10 The Tribune.
Helena, Feb. 27.-The prohibition
enforcement law of Montana does not
forfeit the right of innocent owners of
automobiles used in the illicit trans
portation Of liquor the state supreme
court ruled Monday in deciding the
| case appealed by the John Doran
company of Spokane from decision
of the district court of Missoula
county in which the sheriff had seized
an automobile under search warrant
from parties other than the John
Doran company and attempted con-
fiscation.
The court also finds that form err
Sheriff Green of N1issoula county did
not act in good faith in searching the
car for the purpose of the confisca-
ton. The opinion of the supreme
court is written by Court Commission
er Roy Ayers.
Company Holds Title
The automobile in question was a
Hudson super-six purchased in Spo
kane on a conditional bill of sale
car was to remain in the John Doran
company until fully paid for and was
not to be taken out of the state of
Washington. The purchased of the
car delivered it to other parties who
were arrested and the car taken
away from them in Montana The car
was held in the possession of former
Sheriff Green of Mssoula county for
some time and then the former sher-
if applied to the court for search
warrant to search the car which the
supreme court says he knew did not
contain liquor.
The search was made and following
this procedure a hearing was had on
the order of forfeiture at which the
John Doran company made appear
ance, claiming ownership and denying
knowledge of the transportation of
liquor in the automobile. There was
no evidence that the John Doran com
pany knew for what purpose the car
was being used, the supreme court
says in its decision, and was from all
the evidence an innocent owner of the
automobile.
The court says:
Rights of Innocent Owners
Two important questions are here
involved. Does the law forfeit the
rights of innocent owners or incum-
brancers?, and did the trial court,
either by the facts or the complaint.
acquire jurisdiction to make it's iudg-
ment of forfeiture: On the first prop
osltion no contention is made that ap-
pellant knew or even had reason to
suspect that the car was used for
diSposing of Intoxicating liquors. as
decreed by the court, and the validity
OF its sales contract, or the fact of it's
breach. was not contested; either was
appellants right to the car questioned
in the event it was not ordered for
feited. That places the question of
forfeiting the rights of innocent owners
or incumbrancers squarely before us"
The court. then proceeds to say on
the question of FORGETTING the rights of
leoperty, if it exists. is conferred by
innocent owners:
''The authority to forfeit appellants
chapter 143 OF the laws of 1917, and
section s thereof provides: Upon the
return of the warrant the judge shall
fix time, for the hearing of said
return. At such hearing any person
claiming any interest in any of the
implements. furniture, fixtures or other
articles seized. may appear and be
heard upon filing a verified claim set
ting forth particularly the character
and extent of his interest. but upon
such hearing the sworn complaint or
affidavit upon which the search war
rant WAS ISSUED anu Tie puSStsSlun Vi
such Intoxicating liquor shall be prima
facie evidence of the contraband char
acter of the liquor and implements,
furniture, fixtures and other articles
seized, and the burden shall rest upon
the claimant to show by competent evil
dence, his right or interest therein and
that the same were not used in viola
ton thereof and were not in any man
ner kept or possessed with the inten-
ton of violating any of the provisions
of the laws of this state relating to
liquors. If upon such
hearing. the evidence warrants, or if
no person shall appear as claimant, the
court shall thereupon enter judgment
of forfeiture.'
Forfeitures Not Favored
"Forfeitures are not favored in law
|