The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1883-12-19
DISTRICT COURT.
Boughton vs.. Hsoht-An Interesting Dues.
tlon on Reooupment--Pro-
oeedlnus Yesterday.

os Az oiOCh, SultI JUSTICE y. d. Sener
presiding. The journal of Monday was
read. During the reading of the same
by tAe clerk. 1t was discovered that a
mistake had been made in regard to the
purport of an order or finding Of the
court in the Calland- Freeborn case,
and considerable discussion ensued in
reference to it. 1t was claimed on the
part Of Freeborn that the Judgment
order should show that Freeborn had
an interest in the property sought to
be subjected to the lien in that case,
but not such an interest as could be
reached by the suit to enforce the
lien.
On the other hand 1t was commended
that if this was not shown by the order
then it should show that Freedom had
no interest at all.
Judge Sener held that he had 10
right to find or order either way in this
matter, that Freeborn's interest, if he
had any at all, was but a mere equitable
interest which could not be reached by
u common law court of sequity, and
that the judgment in favor of Free
born for his costs was a sufficient de-
termination of his status in the case.
The question was thus disposed of and
the journal entry made to conform to
that view of the question.
The case of Mary E. Boughton,
plaintiff, vs.. Charles Hecht, defendant,
was then taken up for trial. This is a
common law case and a jury trial had
been waived. Corlett s. Rosendale ap-
peared for the plaintiff and Potter &
Riner for the defendant.
This action grew out of a former snit
in regard to the property known as the
Elephant corral" Hecht originally
owned it by virtue of a mortgage, which
was foreclosed against it as the prop
erty Of w. V. Boughton, formerly
mayor of Cheyenne and brother of the
PLAINTIFFS husband, Edison L. Bough-
ton, and also by virtue of a tax title
purchased from Simpson Bonard.
Mary E. Boughton claimed 1t By virtue
of a deed from M. V. Boughton to her.
SELF, for and in consideration of GER
tain monies which he at the time owed
his brother. NJ. V. Boughton, on the
trial of the suit brought by the plain
tiff to get the possession of the proper
ty and damages, Oh rather In his testi-
mony, stated that the deed which he
gave to Mary E. Boughton was intend
ed for his own wife, whose first name
also was Mary. This seemed, however,
considerably thin, for everybody knows
that the husband cannot deed directly
to The wife, and vice versa. There was
considerable in the case at the time to
show that there had been more or less
fraud practiced upon the plaintiff, not
by Mr.. Hechu at all, but by others, and
not even in the interest of Mr.. Hecht
The plaintiff won the suit, and
the controversy was finally set
tied in the supreme court
of the United States. In due time az
the mandate had come down through
the supreme court of Wyoming to the
district court Of this county the plain
tiff was put in possession by presidents
from said court. During the interval
between the time when the suit was
first commenced up to the time when
the plaintiff was finally put in posses
sion the defendant Hecht retained the
possession and use of the premises. 1t
was to recover damages for the use and
occupancy of the place during the in
term that the suit now pending was
brought.
Mrs. Boughton claims 81, 700 as
damages. The defendant sets up in
his answer a general denial, and also a
claim for 300 for improvements made
by him during the interim on said prop
erty by way Of recoupment, and some
$500 by way of an Offset. There were
some pretty sharp and close contests
yesterday as the triel proceeded, and
when the question of recoupment was
reached a long and animated discus
sion ensued.
| Oduol Oul nbdLuIob Iuo ueleuuulJ
can set up as many defenses as he may
have, but they must be consistent de-
fenies and hence whether in the same
answer and coupled with a general de-
NAL a defendant can recoup and offset
isthe' question.
The court In this cast yesterday held
that this can be done.
Numerous authorities were cited on
both sides. Mr.. Corlett made the ar
gument on the plaintiffs side of the
question and Mr.. Potter for the defen.
dant argued the opposite view OF the
matter.
The case wa still on trial when the
hour for adjournment arrived.
Court adjourned until $50 this
morning.