Great Falls tribune., 1922-04-19
PRISON TRIAL
PRODUCES NEW
STATE CHARGE
Former Warden Vio-
lated Law Implying
Criminal Neglect.
Defense Counte 5,
Showing Suit Was Not
Properly Introduced.

Helena. April 1s.-tRv The tsso-
ciated Press Former Warden Frank
| Conley Of the Montana renifrniarE
! Conlev Of the Montana penitentjary
| 1909 and 1921. according II evidence
produced Tuesday ~ rhc ,riai of the
states suit against the veteran PRISON
official for an accoHnrins, IN WHICH 1t
is alleged. he owes the state more
than 100000
The new angle Of thc '.onry trial
came when Attorney General yelling
ton d. Rankin called 10 the witness
stand Clifford l.. Walker. deputy sec
retary Of state. to testify TO the two
reports filed by Conley. The calling
Of Walker precipitated violent argu-
ment between attorneys for the state
and the defense as TO the admission Of
the testimony. Judge 4. J. Horsky.
presiding. finally decided Walker should
testify and that the matter should
either be ruled out or admitted in a
later consideration of the case.
State Failed to Demand Accounts
Attorney General Rankin. in contest
ing the objections of the defense, in
formed the court that the state law re-
quired all state officials to file reports
every six months and that the failure
to do 50 was criminal offense. He
declared Conley had failed to observe
the law in this respect.
The attorneys for the defense, con
sisting Of Colonel G. Il. Nolan, J. W.
Choate and j. f. O'Conner told the
court the state had in reality not oh
served the law when it filed a suit
against Conley for an accounting. The
Conley attorneys conteDded supreme
court decisions held that a suit for an
accounting must be preceded by a
formal demand for an accounting
Nothing Of this sort. they said, had
been done in the case of Conley. No
formal demand. the court was told. bad
ever been made on the former prison
official for an accounting.
Testimony Admitted for Time
After considerable vituperative argu-
ment between the attorneys. Judge
Horsky decided to admit the testimony
of Walker with the understanding that
it might be stricken out later.
The deputy secretary of state tes
tilted the two reports he submitted for
BY Conley in the period from 1909 to
1921. He said that between 800 and
500 reports had been filed by various
officials during this period. Governor |
Dixon, he said, had followed the law |
and filed his reports semi annually |
He did not know what other officials !
had complied with the law.
Filed With Prison Board !
The law requiring the filing of semi |
annual reports by state officials was !
passed in 1905. In 1909 the legislature |
officially sanctioned the office of the I
state accountant. Since then. the de-
fense claims. the majority Of the state
officials have neglected to file semi
annual reports, because of the fact
that the accountant has reported for
them 1t was said to be question of
whether the legalizing Of the office of
the state accountant by the legislature
recalled the act Of 1909, re-
qulrlng semi-annual reports.
According to attorneys for the de-
fense. Conley filed biennial reports of
the state prison with the board of
prison commissioners. Walker testi
fled he had found no other reports in
the office of the secretary Of state
other than the two he had presented.
These two reports were filed in 1911
and 1917.
Colonel Nolan in cross examining
the witness. attempted to bring out
that other state institutions were also
lerelict in complying with the law as
to semi-annual reports. Judge Horsky
sustained Mr.. Rankin's objection to this
line Of Interrogation. The witness said
ne had sent blanks for the semi-annunl
reports to all state officers He said
that prior to 1909 there were six re-
ports from the prison on file.
The attorney general held the state
had formally called for an accounting
rom Conley under the state law This
aw. he declared, made it obligatory on
he warden to make an accounting. No ,
other demand, he said, was necessary.
The present suit. he stated. was the i
'esult Of the failure of Conley to file
lis reports under the law. F.
After winning it's point with the
'ourt. the state then proceeded to call
witnesses to testify as to the value
# the crops raised on the Aylsworth !
anch, n state-leased property. Among
hose who testified in this respect
we're w. A. Wolfe, X. ID. Smith and
Ilaude n Bielenberg.
Attorney General Rankin, in ex-
mining one Of these witnesses and con-
esting an objection by the defense, i
Omitted that 1.-The state is n little /
hort of evidence in regard to the vari- I
us crops raised" /
In an argument with Attorney ]. w.
freeman for the state, Colonel Nolan 4
old the court he was getting tired of e
he reiteration of the prosecution re- 4
arding the use of technicalities.' The t
tate, he said, was using rs many tech
ical points as the defense. Nv