Case Name: STATE, Appellant, v. DAKIN, Respondent
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1925-12-03
Citations: 75 Mont. 28
Docket Number: No. 5,760
Parties: STATE, Appellant, v. DAKIN, Respondent.
Judges: Associate Justices Holloway, Galen, Stark and Matthews concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
STATE, Appellant, v. DAKIN, Respondent.
(No. 5,760.)
(Submitted November 25, 1925.
Decided December 3, 1925.)
[241 Pac. 623.]
Mr. L. A. Foot, Attorney General, Mr. T. F. Downey, Mr. N. A. Botering and Mr. J. F. Sullivcm, for the State, submitted a brief; Mr. Sullivan argued the cause orally.
Mr. James M. Baldwin, for Respondent, submitted a brief.

Opinion:
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CALLAWAY
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Upon bis trial before a jury for feloniously making a false report to tbe state examiner, Barton B. Dakin was acquitted by direction of tbe district court of Silver Bow county. Judgment of dismissal followed, from wbieb tbe state appealed.
During tbe argument suspicion in tbe minds of tbe members of tbis court that tbe cause was moot ripened into a certainty when, upon being interrogated, counsel for tbe state admitted that they could see no advantage to follow our consideration of tbe cause. Mr. Sullivan, deputy county attorney, who was arguing tbe case ably, upon being asked whether, if tbe cause should be reversed and remanded, a new trial would ensue, said be thought not; be said the case was tried in tbe district court by tbe predecessors in office of tbe present county attorney's force and tbe appeal was being prosecuted out of deference to them. Assistant Attorney General Choate, upon being interrogated as to whether he knew of any reason why tbe court should consider tbe case, replied that be was in duty bound to answer in tbe negative.
It appeared from tbe argument that no novel or important proposition of law was involved, and that a formal decision would only follow principles of law already sufficiently covered in tbe Montana Reports. Tbis court is too busily engaged in tbe consideration of meritorious causes to consider mere moot questions. No such proposition confronts tbe court as was presented in State v. Kindle, 71 Mont. 58, 227 Pac. 65, or in State v. Wong Hip Chung, 74 Mont. 523, 241 Pac. 620.
As no useful purpose can be served by deciding tbe cause upon tbe merits, we refuse to entertain tbe appeal, and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Associate Justices Holloway, Galen, Stark and Matthews concur.