The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-11-25

y0kB ana 1O00Q ~ WA9 Unnecessary 20 Do y I6bi.
dent of this state TO be qualified for APP
ne declared to some parties his intention 70
become resident Of the state, hired desk
room in his lawyers Office. left direction to
have his name proposed for membership OF
9 club, and on the sixth day OF March loft
here on his return to New York.
Five days later his uncle Andrew died.
Mr.. Root says he had quite long talk
with his Uncle John, while in Butte on the
occasion mentioned, but there nowhere APP
pears an utterance throughout tho whole
range of evidence to show that Mr.. Root
mentioned to his Uncle John, the alleged
fraudulent intentions and propositions of
Erwin Davis, which had been made to Mr..
Root according to his profefed proof.
shortly before he left New York to come to
Montana. So far as the evidence discloses
he kept the alleged fraudulent plans and
arrangements Of Erwin profound secret
trial.
II does not even appear that he warned
his aunts or even his Aunt Diana, whom he
says was named bv Erwin 90 an intended
victim of the alleged fraud, 30 that a. far a.
can be gathered from the evidence. John
without the slightest warning to arouse his
suspicious against his brother Erwin. Even
there when Mr.. Root made remarks he
failed to inform the heirs, Of Erwin's al
legged designs.
Il is farther asserted BY appellant, that
John 4: Davis harbored design to join
with Jefferson Davis, the alleged illegiti-
mate son Of deceased, and attempt to take
the whole estate by virtue Of the alleged
sons heirship. This accusation is based
upon certain remarks which John il alleged
to have made.
Mary E. Cummings testified that on tho
forenoon OF the next day after said meet
ing Of the hairs at the Massasoit house, she
had conversation with her uncles, John
and Erwin, in the parlor of said house in
the presence OF her mother, her sister, Mn.
Cummings and her Aunt Diana.
The witness testi6es that ct first they
were engaged in social tall, and afterward
the heirs signing said paper for Erwin; that
her mother then stated that she had de-
cided not to sign said paper for the reason
that her children were not willing that she
should do 80; that Erwin then said he
should not ask her again TO sign the paper.
nor allow her to do 90; that he would 90 to
Montana and represent himself. Then
John remarked, as this witness testi6es, sin
q threatening manner" that he would 90
out and represent himself. and added BY
way Of threat, Il can 60 in with the boy
and take the WHOLE"
Uncle Erwin and said, 'if he can do that,
q smart lawyer certainly CAM and that
Erwin replied, saying mo, no; he does not
We have carefully considered this testi-
mony not only a. to the substance, but also
rounded the parties speaking, and tho other
testimony recorded in the case.
In itself this testimony shows that what ia
quoted by the witnesses must have been Q
fragment of some conversation, Of which
the context is not given. This is apparent
from r. the sentence quoted; II can go il with
does not relate that anything had been said
about any boy during that conversation.
We are left to infer that ''the boy referred
to was some person who had been spoken
OF in the conversation. It 10 no doubt q
fair inference that the person who had been
mentioned was the alleged illegitimate son
Of the deceased; and that when John said
the boy" he referred to that person. II
the conversation, of which the remark
quoted is evidently fragment, was laid
before the court, it would probably show
whether an evil OF an innocent intention
was the motive Of that remark.
Ono of the persons whom this witness
named as present at said conversation, was
witness before the court and testified ON
behalf Of appellant. but she gave no testi-
mony as to the substance OF the converse
ton just referred to. II John A. Davis
made such remarks and sin threatening
~ 10y - . VIZ oos ~ 10
stsange snat tne SISTER, mrs. ADA Cummings,
VINO was Prssent ana VINO testlned IN court
On Denai1 OF Mr. hoot, says nothing about
an occutrence ot sucn importance and 80
calculatoo 70 narrow the feelings OF these
e4Rectant neis.
We only nave euch fragmentary and
e uasconueote0 Iep0t! OF u as 20 require IN
tsesenoe % suPpoStion 70 connect ~ with
s " PaI.y IeietIeo 70, pus We nave evidence
" u 1ne same wltness 20 the e9ect that when
sue sPoke 20 ner U9c!e Erwin about said
Iena!A maoe ~ Jonn. placing certain
!mea4lnR upon y, Erwin corrected her. say
ing sonn 9lo not mean that.
4, AZ saouIo also % observed IN this connec-
sn snat - conn a: laws entertained
- OF JOINING Win said alleged son
% attempt TO claim the whole estate
through his relationship to deceased, as ap
pelient lnslsta, TINS brings 70 light another
con!Para9y az least contemplated OF threat
sneo Dy Jonn WINE nt the Massasoit house.
i. A A 20 tMs theory John 10 placed
ln Tne attisuoe OF consplring at one moment
Sasn. e n, % ges onaige OF the estate and
snd - ths ,snt mo.n OF !neiE Mnefltance:
E.1;,, ~ s snS ILL.,. r ~ snG presence Of
~ ~ anI osl ;e nea.s, serlousy tnfeaten.
Ia. hiissh 81 ~ wnd sS. wnose csaims y
Hs;.s Mha ~oa ~ ueAS S1 Etwn ana AZ sne
,Imd,nn y yahso E; sus mss s mouse m
,se5;ns .y M. n y ss;L VI gil nope OF sue
;rh.1 ka - a9. a, - s1 ~ xass estate;
h,,,.a erah snows ,S snas g sne MasSasoit
,s"nr,tIa Io TO-. .n,u ~ :9me .! tnc neifs
II Tnw. Ersv;,, aU0"s sa.a aegl.mase son
- onth.;.aJ ~ .ukEes.sH saas some one
% avoid litination and scsni.I. .nd =