The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1923-07-25
COURT WON'T
INTERFEREIN
INDICTMENTS
Rases Action Upon Statutory
Grounds to be Followed
After Court Rule
TOWNLEY, LEMKE FREE
Judge Mckenna Had Quashed
Indictments of Grand Jury
Decision Stands
TOWNLEY, LEMKE FREE
NUB OF DECISION.

The nub Of the courts decision
in the bank cases, according to
one lawyer who read opinion, was
that supreme court held that the
indictments of the grant jury
were valid as except F. w.
Cathro and it did not decide in
his case, but that District Judge
Mckenna in dismissing the de-
fendants and not ordering them
held for another grand jury. act
ed under statutes which pre-
scribe procedure and are exclu-
sive, and that the supreme court
does not have the power to
change the action taken.
Attorney General Shafer de-
clined to comment on the deci-
: sion or say what further action
might be taken, until he has con-
ferred with George A. Bangs,
special assistant attorney general
and States Attorney H. F.. Hor-
ner Of Cass county.
The statute of limitations has
run in some cases, barring fur
ther prosecution under the
charges, but Attorney General
Shafer said he could not say in
which cases until after a close
study Of involved charges made
in indictments ~e 'et
The supreme court, in a decision
handed down today, denied the appli-
cation of the state for supervisory
writ in the case in which the state
sought to have reinstated indictments
returned by, a Cass county grand jury
in the Scandinavian american bank
wrecking" cases and which were
quashed by District Judge George W.
McKenna.
The courts decision was based up
on the statutory procedure governing
motions to dismiss indictments, hold
ing that "when indictments are err
roneously dismissed upon motion, eas
further proceedings must be as con-
templated in the statute"
The decision disposes Of the ori-
ginal indictments returned by the
Cass county grand jury on May 16
and IL. 1922. the jury having return
ed 3b indictments against IL persons.
Those Indicted =
The IL were indicted on various
charges which included embezzle-
ment, making false reports to the
bank examiner, receiving deposits in
insolvent bank, perjury. making false
statements and entry. The indicted
were: A. c. Townley, William Lem
ke, F. w. Cathro. Louis P. McAneney,
H. G. Eggen. H. J. Hagen, Lars
Christianson, p. r. Sherman, o. E.
Lofthus, H. A. Paddock, J. ]. Hast
ings. H. D. Ellis.
The decision Of the court held
with the state on some Of the con-
tentions advanced in the case before
1t. The defense had asserted that
the supreme court lacked jurisdiction
to exercise its supervisory power over
lower courts because the district
court ssted within its jurisdiction.
The high court, in the opinion, says
that the power of the supreme court
was not affected in any way by this
fact.
The defense argued that the SUI
preme court could not exercise pow
er because the indictments had been
dismissed, defendants discharged and
bail exonerated and the power Of .su.
perintending control could not be ex-
ercised for the reason that there was
nothing before the lower court to 30
acted upon. The supreme court held
the argument unsound, and that the
supreme court power Of supervisory
control attaches where the error Of
the trial court begins.
Question Considered
"The question for our serious con.
Germ upon this application 10, in view
Of the statutes Of this state govern
ing criminal procedure, 10 1 case pre-
sented where this court should exer-
else ito experimenting control9" the
| decision said.
The state has statutes, originated
some fifty years ago, which are clear
and explicit In their abatement Of
consequences to follow the ruling Of
the district court, the decision said.
The state argued that the statutes
Themselves constituted Z situation
justlfying the exercise Of superin-
tending control.
"This court does not hesitate to
confess degree Of embarrassme in
the determination Of the questions
presented upon these arguments. .
said the decision. "On the one hand,
we are clear that sthe constitution
vests experimenting control gem
orally over the actions OF the district
courts. On the other hand, ws are
confronted with the consideration
that the Legislature, which must be-
L -