Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-19
APPEALS ARGUED.
Decision in Two Criminal Cases Taken to
the Supreme Court.

Decision In Two Criminal Cases Taken to
the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court yesterday two APP
peals were argued from the criminal side OF
this District Court. One was the Territory
vs.. Willard and Blackwood, convicted at
the last term Of petit larceny RON Carrie
Schultz, and against whom another indiee-
meut for burglary raj found, arising u
OF the same transaction. The case was
carried up to the Supreme Court by the
Territory IRON the ruling OF Judge DeWolf
that the defendants liberty could not
twice be put in jeopardy for the same
o~ffense. Judge Liddell delivered the opinion
/ Of the court that a conviction for larceny
1 did not bar prosecution for burglary grow
ing out Of the same transaction. County
| ATTORNEY De Witt appeared for the Terri
| tory, and Mcbride & Haldorn for the de.
| fendants.
THE other case was that against Philip
| Laun. tried at the May term last year. for
| stealing calves. He and A. THAI had been
| together in the butchering business on East
| Park street, and Mr.. THAI summary
closed up the shop one day and told Laun
he had no further use Tor him aun
| thought he had use for the earcasses OF some
calves hauging up in the shop, as Thau had
taken away the books and he couldn't get
q settlement from him, SO he entered the
| store, took the carcasses and carried them
to Henry Nickel's store, where he was u
loading them when he was arrested in the
act At the trial his counsel argued that ne
could not be convicted OF stealing, as the
question OF partnership came in. He was
acquitted in the lower court and the Terri
tory took an appeal, which was argued yes.
terday BIZ County Attorney De Witt, for
the appellant, and Mcbride & Haldorn for
the respondent. the Supreme Court sustain.
ing the verdict in the court below.
Among the civil cases argued yesterday
fromthis District Court were Chauvin vs.
Walton, and Saville VS.. the Etna and the
London and Lancashire Insurance Co.'S,
two cases, which were taken under advise
ment. In the latter case Saville insured
his property II the Agricultural Insurance
Company for 81, SOC, the policy containins
a, clause that It should be void ii the in
sured entered rto 81. suraace contTac'
with any oder T@n Iaas lthout notl1gin.
the Agriculture u ne same. Subsequent
ly Saville insured the same property in the
Etna and the London and Lancashire fol
81, 200 in each without notifying the Agri
cultural. The insured premises were
burned down and the loss to each
company adjusted at about $4,000. The
Etna and the L. and l.. paid their share
oil the loss and their policies were sur
rendered to them and cancelled. The Ag
ric~ultural refused to pay it's share OF thu
loss on the ground that the contract hao
been violat, d. Saville thereupon brought
action against the other two companies
for the balance of his loss, on the ground
that the contract with the Agricultural
was void by his contract with them ano
obtained judgment. from which the com
panies took an appeal to the Supreme
Court. The decision in this case will be 0
general interest to policy holders in fir
companies.