The Bozeman courier. (Bozeman, Mont.) 1919-1954, 1926-12-10
SHERIFF VICTOR
IN CUSTER CASE
SUPREME COURT ORDERS THAT
MUSSELSHELL OFFICER
BE REINSTATED
Members of Legislative Committee of
Montana SpOrtsmen's Association
Have Conference on Proposed
Laws; Credit Corporation Formed
(By Our Helena Correspondent

Due to the fact that improper pro-
cedure was followed in an action to re-
move T. G.. Beazley from his office as
sheriff of MusselsheH county a year ago,
the supreme court has upheld Beazley In
his appeal from the Judgment of the
district court Of Musselshe1 county and
has remanded the case to the district
court with directions to dismiss the pro-
ceeding.
The case grew out Of charges Of miscOn-
duct on the part OF the sheriff based upon
allegations that he had solicited and en-
forced payments to him from bOOtleggers
who were operating in this county. The
county attorney of Ausselshell county, A.
&. Mcknight, filed in the district court
on November IA, 1925, an accusation in
writing charging Beazley with nOn-feas-
ance in office and seeking his removal.
The action was brought under the pro-
visions of section 11702, which permits the
filing in the district court of an accusation
in writing whenever an officer has been
guilty of knowingly, willfully or cOrruptly
collecting illegal fees for services rendered
or has wilfully refused or neglected to per-
form the official duties pertaining to his
office, in which case the court must pro-
! coed to hearing, in a summary manner, or
I trial, upon the evidence offered in support
of the accusation and if the accusation is
sustained, the court must enter judgment
depriving the defendant of his office.
Galen Writes Opinion
Proceeding under this statute the district
court heard the evidence of Nick Vranish
and Jack Hinahd, who testified that Beaz-
ley had at various times called upon them
and demanded and collected various sums
as protection to them in their Illicit sales
of liquor. The court subsequently entered
Judgment against Beazley, depriving him
of his office. From this judgment he ap-
pealed to the supreme court.
The supreme court, in an opinion de-
livered by Associate Justice A. J. Galen
after reviewing the evidence, comes to the
conclusion that while the accusation was
brought under a statute which covers non
feasance in office only, all the evidence
points to malfeasance in office, under
which Beazley could have been proceeded
against only under the provisions Of sec
ton 116SS, which provides that IN accusa
tiOn against any district, county, township
or municipal officer for wilful or cOrrup
misconduct or malfeasance in office, mus
be presented by the grand jury Of thu
county for which the officer accused il
elected or appointed.
Short Cut Not Proper
It concludes it's opinion with the state
ment:
ALTHOUGH the defendant may be guilt!
of a felony, that is, the crime Of bribery
constituting that which is denOminated a
malfeasance in office; yet such a shOr
cut to effect his summary removal from
office as has been attempted here, desirabl
as it may be, is not warranted.
GAS it is clear that the court was withOu
Jurisdiction, the judgment is reversed an
the cause is remanded with directions t
dismiss the proceedings" The opinion wa
cOncurred in by the other four member
of the court sitting in the case.