187 P. 637 | Mont. | 1920
delivered the opinion of the court.
On April 12, 1919, John P. Murphy made complaint to the-district court of Silver Bow county that he had' reason to believe, and did believe, that intoxicating liquors were being kept,, possessed and deposited at the Almira Apartments, in Butte,.
1. The right of a party claiming the property seized to a trial by jury.
2. The sufficiency of the evidence to justify the judgment of confiscation.
3. The right of the state to tax the costs against the party claiming the property; and
4. A preliminary question of practice, viz.: The right of a party claiming the property to move for a new trial.
1. New trial proceedings are purely statutory. (Ogle v. Potter, 24 Mont. 501, 62 Pac. 920.) The search and seizure statute
2. The proceeding authorized by Chapter 143, above, is instituted by a sworn complaint (section 7), but this does not mean necessarily a formal pleading. It may be in the form of an
The right of trial by jury in the classes of cases in which it.
Such summary proceedings as were known to the common law
Cases cited by appellant within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts and cases arising under the-revenue laws of the United States are not applicable.
It would not be questioned by anyone that if the forfeiture of the liquors were a part of the penalty imposed upon a defendant for a violation of the law, the right of trial by jury would obtain; but, as observed heretofore, this proceeding is' in rem, entirely distinct from, and independent of, the criminal prosecution and having different objects and results in view. The proceeding is more analogous to that provided by the Act,
The legislation in question does not transgress the Constitution in providing that intoxicating liquors may be forfeited and destroyed after a summary hearing by the court and a determination of their contraband character.
3. It is earnestly contended that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.- We have examined it carefully, but no useful purpose would be served in reviewing it at length. We content ourselves with saying that in our judgment it is ample. The most that can be said of it is that it presents a sharp conflict involving only the credibility of the witnesses.
4. In taxing the cost of the proceeding against claimant
The cause is remanded to the district court, with directions to strike from the judgment the item of cost, and as thus modified, it will stand affirmed.
'Modified and affirmed.