The Powder River County examiner and the Broadus independent. [volume] (Broadus, Mont.) 1919-1935, 1922-02-10

while Violette, on whose premises the
plant was located, claimed that he
had no knowledge of the distillery
although 1t was less than $50 feet
from his residence and within the
same enclosure, according to Mr..
Slattery.
Fine Point in Law
John Samlin's case involved q fine
point in law. He was charged with
maintaining nuisance where intoxi-
eating liquor was kept and sold con-
trary to law. He was found guilty
by a jury of the unlawful sale of
intoxicating liquor. He based his
appeal on the ground that he had
been convicted of an offense with
which he was not charged. The cir
cult court of appeals affirmed the
conviction, holding that the informa-
ton against him contained in fact
the offense of which he was convict
ed.
John Samlin was the principal In
the famous state supreme court
search warrant decision handed down
approximately q year ago in which
the high court held that affidavits in
support of search warrants must be
based on fact and not on hearsay in
formation and belief.
He was arrested on the charge in
volved in the appeal decision March
~, 1921. and convicted in federal
court sitting at Helena in July of
last year. He drew five months in
the county jail.
It will take 80 days before a man
date is issued out Of the circuit court
OF appeal on receipt of which orders
to sentence the defendants will be
Issued In federal court.
Violette and Moret were represent
ed by the legal firms OF Russell and
Medin. and Heyferon and Patterson,
both OF Mtssoula. Frank H. Hunter
OF Miles City and Mcintyre and MUIR
ply OF Helena represented John Sam
lin.
The Courts Ruling
The courts affirmation of John
Samlin's conviction in the district
court follows:
"The question presented in this
case is whether the judgment of the
court below should be reversed for
the reason that the verdict of the
jury found the plaintiff in error
guilty of a crime not charged in the
information. The Information alleg-
ed that on or about March 10, 1921.
the plaintiff in error, at a DESIGNATED
place. did then and there maintain
common nuisance, that is to say.
building where intoxicating LIQUOR.
to-wtt. whisky, was kept and sold, in
violation of Title II of the national
prohibition act. The verdict of the
jury was. we the jury in the above
entitled cause, find the defendant
guilty Of the unlawful sale OF intoxi-
eating liquor, to-wit, whisky, on the
18th and 10th Of March. 1872 There
Is no bill Of exceptions. We must
assume that there was evidence to
sustain the verdict, that the court
properly instructed the jury, and that
the plaintiff in error saved on excep-
lions to the admission Of testimony
or to the form Of the verdict. The
inquiry IL whether the verdict is
compatible with the indictment. Sec
tion 1895 Rev. Stat. provides: In all
criminal causes the defendant may be
found guilty Of any offense the COM
mission Of which 10 necessarily in
cluded in that with which he ia
charged In the Indictment In %
CYC 46S Il 10 said that . conviction
cannot be had Of q crime unless the
indictment In describing the major
offense contains all the essential
Of the leaa 0f TIA 1.oaAa.I