Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1888-05-12
THE DrsrRrcr ooURr.
second Day of the Term-No Causes ms let
Tried, but Several Interesting Ones Up.

SECOND Day of the Term-No Causes ms y .
Tried, but Several Interesting Ones Up.
The court was convened at the usua
bour. The United States trial jurors who
had beeu subpened appeared, and the fol
lowing gentlemen were excused: j. III
The Jury as follows was then -empanneled.
W. N. Aylesx orth, W. B. Miller. Jonas Me.
Donald, VIM. Coleman. Milo French, III. III.
Horst, John P, Reins, Chas. Carlton, Dan.
Yaegaf, Thos. Harper, Thos. Q. Porter, j.
R.Sackrider, Jerre Roach, l.. +. Wyman,
VIM. McDermott, M. Gensberger, NJ. Bien,
r. Hollywood, S. L. Hirbour, w. C. Muir
vhy, John NJ. Steward, Thos. M. Lowry, j.
H: Shaw, John M. Bowes.
The United States Grand Jury then came
into court and submitted it's report. 1t
stated that all matters to which their at
tention had been brought had been care
fully examined into and the results were ra-
turned to the court. The Jury then asked
to be discharged. After thanking the gen.
tlemen for the prompt manner in which
the duties assigned them had been per-
formed, the judge ordered that the jury be
discharged.
TIMBER COSTS.
The motion OF counsel for defense that
the suits against the Montana Improve
ment Company for alleged violation OF the
timber law be stricken from the file was
overruled by the court, U. s. Attorney
Smith having mad affidavit that there
was an understanding with Colonel Sam
ders (also attorney Tor the defense) cover.
-. ~ ApnISCinn 1kaF 1afaR.a
to strike out n certain portion of the com
plant for the reason that a por ion OF the
land referred to was unsuryeyed.
Z. 5. District Attorney Smith, later in
the afternoon, expressed a willingness to
The court to have that portion of the com.
paint relating to Sec. 20 struck out, as no
timber was cut thereon.
NJ. Bernheim was some time ago arrested
for selling grouse out of season, aud was
iued, and appealed. The case was dis
missed, the court holding that ae thegrouse |
had not been killed in this Territory, the
action against Bernheim could not stand.
for although a legislative act made posses.
sion of the game prima facie evidence, it
was in excess of the powers OF a legislature
to restrict Interstate which
would be the effect. in a case like this.
THE herman CASE.
Inc neAG case WAS GnaG oil Herman, who |
was complaining witness in the Fry cattle
stealing case. The case was tried before
Judge L%ippincott, who dismissed the de-
fendant and assessed the costs upon Her
man, a decision from which he appealed.
The court ruled that as Herman had no
PERSONAL interest in the matter, not being
an'iniured party, but was solely actuated
by a desire to bring the guilty parties TO
Justice, that he was entitled to a remission
Of the penalty.
THE CASE OF MARTIN.
The motion of Mcbride q Haldorn for
the discharge OF VIM. Martin, the A~nacon-
da murderer, was then taken up and ar
gued. The basis of the motion was that
the statute required that when a change OF
venue was granted, the prisoner should be
to the sheriff of the county to
which he was to be sent at least three days
before tie opening day OF the court, and
hat he should be accompanied by the
warrant OF arrest. As the law had
lot been complied with in either of these
counsel claimed hat Martin was
illegally de! aimed, and asked his dis
barge from custody. The motion was
'verruled, but the court stated that he
would not set the trial until the proper |
were presented in court. Martin
therefore, remains in the custody of Sheriff {
Lloyd. S
The case OF Thomas Rogers VS.. Thomas t
Waters was then taken up on a moeion to t
strike out a portion OF the replication. II 7
was argued by Mr.. Napton for the plaintiff I
and Mr.. Dixon for the defendant, and j
taken under ADJUSTMENT by the court. l
The case of Rowe VS.. Kessler: suit for t
for injuries caused by the child of t
plaintiff falling into a excavation on he g
lear Grit property was argued on dem r l
urer. Mcbride & Haldorn for plaintiff
IND Rob nson & Stapleton and Knowles Il T
Norbis for defendants. The point involved /
vas as o the right OF the Legi ,lature to /
uake a law requiring parties to fence in q
UGH excavations when at a distance of v
hirty feeet from the highway. The defense t
that if it had authority to do that T
t could make it 1000 feet. The case was il
under advisement and The Court \
Ldjourned. G