The Livingston enterprise. [volume] (Livingston, Mont.) 1883-1914, 1888-05-12
PRICE 10 CENTS
District Court.

IOr Iark county convened on Monday
last, Judge NJ. J. Liddell presiding. The
following attorneys were in attendance:
L. n. Luce and d. c. Campbell, Boze-
man; John Trumbull, Glendive; j. A.
Savage, J. H. Elder and Allan r. Joy.
The grand jury was empanneled and
after listening to the Judges charge,
retired.
| The trial jurors were then empan-
nelled and the court proceeded with the
hearing Of cases, the following having
been disposed of:
John II. Elder, receiver First National
bank Of Livingston VS.. A. b. Lynd and
wife; judgment by default ordered.
John H. Elder, receiver of First Ma
tional Bank of Livingston VS.. G. F.
Cady; judgment by default.
Downen VS.. Downen; divorce; con-
tinued.
J. Wilkins VS.. Redfield ct al; leave to
file amended answer granted.
Annie Merrill VS.. r. NJ. Mcknight;
dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
Emma Bamsord VS.. John Bamford,
divorce; referred to Chas. Tappan, ref
cree, to take evidence.
Jas. Hall VS.. H. Gassert ct al; suit in
volving mining property; continued.
L. d. Bulls VS.. G. w. Donaldson; de-
murrer overruled and leave to file an
swer granted.
Geo. II. Carver vs.. Minneapolis Min
ing and Smelling company, attachment;
dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
J. H. Turley VS.. Phil Bother; contin-
ued by consent.
Cope VS.. Turley; demurrer overruled,
and leave to file answer granted.
NJ. Conhauser & Co. VS.. M. Roth &
Co., dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
Wesley Franklin vs.. Anna Franklin;
divorce; granting petition for alimony
deferred until attorney for defendant
files affidavits.
William Strob VS.. George Welcome;
continued to first Thursday of next
term.
Ferdinand Drews VS.. David j. Ken
nelly; motion for new trial argued and
taken under advisement.
Wesley p. Franklin VS.. Anna Frank
lin; divorce; order for alimony made
and case fixed without prejudice for
Friday, 18th inst.
j. F. Wilkin VS.. w. II. Redfeld ct al;
foreclosure of mortgage.
Emanuel Goughnour & Co. VS.. Matt
Morand; confession of judgement by
defendant proven in open court and
judgment rendered.
Hoffman ct al. VS.. Samuel A. Beecher:
action to quiet title to quartz claim;
cause continued by consent.
Victoria DeVOe VS.. Samuel DeVOe;
divorce; decree granted.
Emma BamfOrd VS.. John BamfOrd;
divorce; decree granted.
Brown Bros. VS.. Lucy A. Mirrie]ees;
dismissed for want of prosecution.
Territory of Montana VS.. Ernest Tiv-
endell; rape. No true bill.
Territory of Montana VS.. Edward
Henly; ssault with deadly weapon.
Grand jury find no true bill.
Territory VS. Merritt E. Metcalf; mis-
feasance is office. A. r. Joy appointed
to defend. Trial fixed for 11th inst.
Territory of Montana VS.. j. r. Hath
orn; indicted for maintaining nul-
sance. Arraigned and given twenty
four hours to plead
Territory of VS.. Fred Nelson and
Dolly Creighton; fOrnication. Defend
ants discharged, the evidence not being
sufficient to convict.
GRAND JURY REPORT.
10 the Honorable Judge of the First
Judicial District, Territory of Montana:
We, the grand jury of Park county,
having completed the duties devolving
uIon us, beg to report as follows:
We have investigated the charges
against the prisoners confined in the
county jail and all other matters of al
legged violation of law that have been
brought before us, and have acted
upon the same.
We have visited the county Jail. The
new building erected by the county
commissioners is fully adapted for the
purposes for which it was designed and
is conducted in a manner creditable to
our sheriff. Two prisoners are now
confined therein; one, however, serving
out penalty imposed.
We have also visited the other offices
of the county and find that the various
duties devOlving upon the officers have
been performed in satisfactory man.
ner and books and records carefully
kept, so far as we are able to ascertain
in limited examination. We, however,
think that examinations of this nature
would be much more valuable if con-
Quoted by an expert appointed by the
court, with ample time for thorough
AS some misconcepJion
has been current among the taxpayers
of the county as to the action of the
county commissioners in paying the
salary of the county assessor and some
other matters, one of the commission
ers appeared before us and the follow
ing facts were ascertaIned: The pay
ment of $500 for the employment Of an
and for transcribing property
lists, ETC., from the records of Gailatin
county, though not provided for form
ally by law, was an absolute necessity.
and the further remuneration of the
assessor was, instead Of the whole SAL
ary of $1.SOO. only $1,O5O, making the
entire cost of his Office for the year
81 $50. t3 t.a IL
We find that the paupers of the
county have been provided for with
as little expense to the county as is con-
sistent with humanity and our facil-
tiles for caring for them. 5a sT,
Through information from various
sources, we are led to believe that the
laws relating to the admission OF minors