Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-27

a BIG DOCKET.

i BIG DOCKET.
THAT Set for the Next Term II the District
Court-Thlrty Divorce Cases what
the View Constitution SHOULD Provide
For.
The civil docket Tor the next term OF the
I District Court will coatain AIS cases.
which is 1.-The largest that has b en- presented
to the court in this district vi. to the pres
emit term. The fact IS that the docke,s
have been growing larser each succeeding
term. As the country fills up Nith popul.-
ton tie litigation keeps pace with it, ia,-
~creasing in proportion. In conyersing vii ii
an attorney on the subject yesterday, he
l said the court here was really two years
/ behind with its cases, and that it is work
ing q great hardship to litigants. "There
Is enough legal business IN Silver Bow
county alone.n said he, .'tO keep n Judge
1 busy-that is. civil and criminal. l hope
to see the Judiciary 20 arranged under the
Constitution that the courts 81 the new
State will be adequate to the transaction
OF the business coming before them. The
old Constitution only provided for the
same number OF districts as now, but that
is manifestiy inadequate to present condi-
tions. The population has considerably
Increased since then. and we may expect q
still greater influx alter we become n
State
"Do you really think Silver Bow County
has enough litigation to require the services
OF q separate judge for it?"
II do, more especially il, as is proposed,
the business of the Probate Court 10 added
ito 1t. The criminal business requires re-.
arrangement too. AS it is now. offenders
in misdemeanor cases have q chance Tor
two jury trials. They can get q jury before
q justice OF the peace or the Probate j Judge,
and their appeal lies to the District Court
where they have q second jury trial. In
felony cases, there a only be one jury
trial ip the District Court. Thisis, of course,
unfair and should be femedied. It has been
the cause OF piling up an immense amount
OF costs in frivolous cases that mostly fall on
thecounties. The new constitution shoulddo
away with iuries almost entirely in INSIDE
meanors. 1 think the Pennsylvania plan
tho best. There they have q court of com
mon pleas for each county which is q court
OF first instance for all civil and criminal
cases in it. OF course, where the counties
are sparsely settled, two OF three OF them
are Joined together under n Judge and the
same plan should be adopted here. There
ought to be q provision for enlarging the
judiciary to meet the wants of the rapid
Increase OF population that takes place in |
the West. The provision of the former
constitution in this respect was detective
too, leaving it to the Legislature. There
seems to be q strange unwillingness in legis- |
lakS1,a hnlsoS 20 nn14-nO kEn s,,lso1a.- - Il
insect increased necessities. But under the
Encouragement OF judicial matters which
will fall unon the constitution makers, the
delegates from Silver Bow should strenu- !
ously contend to have it q separate dis
trict by ITSELF |
A visit to the District Court Clerks Office
the civil docket made up ready for
the term. subject to the few changes that
may occur in the short time intervening be-
tween now and May g.. The case that was
first on the docket lastyearfs frat this year,
cution was renewed last May, and it comes
up for a hearing now to quash the execu-
ton. The criminal docket will embrace
about fifteen cases. OF which Ole is q MUIR
der case. The list OF divorce cases set for
hearing at this term is unusually heavy, |
numbering thirty. Only two OF these cases
are set for trial; demurrers will be argued |
in two, and a motion to strike out in an.
other. The rest are uncontested. The fol-
lowing is the list:
1856. Eliz Augustine VS.. Christian Angus.
tine, commenced 10 April, 1885; on default.
1889. Chas. II. Orcutt vs.. Zelpha M.
Orcutt, commenced May, 1885: on proof
of publication.
1941. II. J. Price We. F. r. Price; ON
proof of publication.
1889. Mary j. Parsons We. W. E. Par.
sons; on default.
1880. Carrie johnson We. Frank john
son; for trial.
BIOS. William Hobba VS.. Frances Hob
ba; ON motion to strike out.
2113. Lucretia e. Benson va. Chas. M.
Benson; on proof OF publication.
2ll9. Mary Morehouse vs. Isaac Moore
for trial.
2l36. Fannie Walker VS.. Chas. s.
Walker; on proof of publication.
215O. John A. Smith VS.. Minnie Smith;
On report OF referee.
2163. Marion S%urprenant vs. Alphonse
default.
22S7. Maud Snyder vs.. David M. Sny-
Ter; for proof OF publication.
1858. Dennis D. Murphy VS.. Nora MUIR
on proofof publication.
1865. L. 8. Hays vs., M. E. Hays: on re-
port of referee. @.
Aoo4s 4mdty OupCEuduV VS. hliEGU oup6F- |
rant; IN default of defendant.
24O9. Hattie B. Miles va. M. W. Miles:
IN proof OF publication. |.
2416. Emma E. Spencer vs. John F..
on default. ID
2423. q. +. Brant vs. Annie Brant; ON
,roof Of publication. ID
2424. Eliz. A. Kent VS.. Thos. A. Kent; ,
N default. Ii
2425. Gedson Thetrault VS.. Resale q
on proof Of publication. 8
2427. Katie Leger vs. Eliza F. Leger; ON
II
2433. Mary J.. Deutro vs. David s..
.)eutro; on proof of publication.
2436. Lille &. Gordol vs.. John A. Cor
on; on default.
2437. Nellie Andrews vs.. Joseph An.
rews; on proof of publication.
244O. Ida A. Smith vs.. Henry Smith: :
demurrer. -,
2441. Daniel Arms Va. Mary A. Arms:
n proof of publication.
2443. Curtis II. Hill va. Ada s. Hill; on
roof of publication.
2444. Eliza Pengelly VS.. Thos. Pengelly;
n proof of publication.
2447. JOS. Runyon VS.. Mary j. Runyon; r
q proof OF publication. Il
1856. Hannah A. Stenberg We. Oscar .,