The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1889-10-29

points must Ire observed In court. Ny
made. this notion. But ! am willing Ia
take further consideration ot the matter
constituted In n certain name. The writ
should he framed i'm the name Of ths. gov
framed by congress- and not by
Judge kirkpatrick said: ~ think nsorv,
time has been wasted on this tcchnicaiity
. an,,bt = Of un,' ,mm,r Of w .Ss sn,,s, ~ ,n nneu II
this proceeding, n writ. u summons ar amy
other proceeding In the case. II there is
amy doubt on this question. we will pro-
duce authorities To show the power of the
court. But We, think there, is no Necessity.
people Of and make il The TERRITORY OF
Montana, This will not take five
Ills this motion resisted" asked the
court.
.Y:s sir" replied Mr.. C~ampbcii:
"Ihers' is no authority" said Judge
entirely from the one first mentioned in
the manda'nns. The writ can Inc amended
as far as the matter contained i'm il is coi-
ccrnsd, but not as far as the parties are
concerned. IL Is an anomaly tn have the
defendants ordered here NV one party and
made to answer the charge of another
party"
"tin the matter l don't propose to hurry
and will take abundance of time" said
the court. II will hear this argument this
afternoon"
The cour. at II :2s o'clock adjourned UNI
Ill = O'Clock this afternoon, leaving the
first victory ON the side of the reiIublicans.
At = o'clock this afternoon the corrt
was at hand and every inch of the court
argument proceeded ON the question of
amending the title of the writ Nd that il
OF Montana" Warren Tooic spoke for
the rcl,tor. He said; Our statute pro
instituted by the person whose rights or
interests are, affected. The object Of this
80 le will hold fyf-IVtn fncfn the. rights az
office; This process Is simply a process
by order If the court, requiring the de-
party has brought the action. Under the
statutes of tins territory. section $50. IL is
s nnex'"t IN : All ca ase writ wi,.r S!'", There be is is
not a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary courts of law, and
is further provided that the court shall i'm
every stage of am action disregard any err
ror or defcc. which will no. affect the in
nical defect shall he regarded, as shown
in the statute. According to- section 537.
the title of the action or process i'm which
il is made. or which is made with n de-
fective title, shall be valid AS though the
court to investigate is whether this writ is
"a proper paper i'm detail; the title il not a
necessity: The emitting of il is Of no
The court said: 1.-THE only thing to be
considered here is that there is such IA
tnltlK KNOWN as tine tcfrltpry GI MONTANA
as a legal entity; there is no such thing as
the people of the territory OF Montana AS
a. legal entity. That is simply the point
voivcd. The people OF Montana' not
being spoken Of in amy law, and the terri
tory being reeognizsd in iaTi the latter
exceedingly refined and technical, but, 1
decided Il ON the best legal light obtains
amendment of the writ"
Mr.. Toole said that his is something
affecting the substantial rights of parties
he regarded. The court gave il as his
opinion that owing To the gravity of the
interests at stake, the matter should be
governed like any other ease i'm Court,
whether the matter involved he great or
small. Mr.. Toole said he knew Of moth
ing stronger that the court can correct u
mistake i'm the writ.
Thompson Campbell said: 1.-THE law
provides that i'm extraordinary remedies,
thority. and that authority should he
named. l cite the fifty-first California,
T ,H sn. does s. mot allow ;"r !, the sa s,rdik Ing out ,S OF
name entirely. If the writ could not
he issued i'm the name of the people
of the territory. could there by IA simple
twist or the wrist, he substituted IA party
which has "a case against the
Whereas there was no party at all; YOU
change. All the authority of that piece of
paper is gone because il emanatcd from
that which, had no existence. And you
%istence."
Judge Kirkpatrick said: "Onr PROPOSE
ton is, waiving the discussion on the part
of the people and the territory, to- strike
out that part which is objccted to. Under
authority we ask simply to- correct u mis-
take i'm the name of the party, which is al
lowed by the statutes to prevent the sacri-
flee Of Justice on technicalities so naked
as these. cite authorities to- show
where the title might be- irregular
ity. yet not N nudity. Here is n
case where the name of john Smith is
permitted to- he changed to Robert Smith.
Now i'm this case il has been the aim to
bring in the name of the sovereign power.
What il il but "A mistake in tho name of
an individual: We ask to strike ont thai
part of the corporate naIne in the de-
scription of the sovereign power which is
supcrtiuous and here the law is as clear
as day to allow such corrections. If John
Smith can he corrected to Robert Smith,
then the people of Montana can he cor-
rected to 'thc territory That is the way
the courts treat these spider webs"
The court said that because the chris
tian name of "a party could he changed,
that did not imply that the entire name of
"a party could be changed.
Judge Knowles said: 1.-THE territory
and the people of the territory are entirely
different partics. They are so ~recognizcd
10y law. This motion is not merely to
strike ont "a s,Irplusagc. hut to name a new
party-a different party"