State v. Anderson, 35 Mont. 374, 89 P. 831 Mont. 1907. An instruction that important and striking contradictions in the statements of the different witnesses who testified at the trial should be attributed to deliberate perjury, rather than to the fault of inattention or defect of memory, and that coincidence in all points of the stories of different witnesses always engenders a suspicion of practice and concert, and gives rise to the imputation of perjury, was error.

State v. Cook, 42 Mont. 329, 112 Pac. 537. 1907 Treating the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the state, it fails to show that defendant is guilty of the crime charged. It would seem that the controversy between the prosecuting witness and this defendant is one for adjustment in a civil suit. The criminal court is not the proper forum for settling disputed questions relating to the title to property, and it ought not to be converted into an agency for the collection of debts. However, if the defects in the record as now presented arise from an erroneous theory adopted by the prosecution, the state should have an opportunity to present its case, if any it has, fully and fairly; and to that end we shall not go farther than to remand the cause for a new trial, or for such other proceedings as the state may take, not inconsistent with the views herein expressed. The judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.