The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-11-25


company with his niece Cornue fire.
quently at Butte City and they
travelled together thereafter from
Butte to Springfield, Massachusetts.
Nor does II appear that John A. sought N
persuade this niece or anyone who had
knowledge OF the vast estate left by the
deceased TO join him in suppressing that
knowledge from the other heirs or de-
fraudine or misinforming them as TO the
estate. On one occasion in which this
niece introduced n conversation as 10 tns
surprise that awaited the other heirs and,
according TO her narrative, John A. inti-
mated that he harbored improper inten-
tions toward the other heirs, this he en-
phatically denied and gives a
different version of said con-
versation. The most that can be
said of this evidence Is that IL IL con-
fiiciing and the court having the witnesses
before II, decided between the conflicting
statements. The well-established rule
often announced by the court is that in
such case the decision will not be dis
turbed.
At the same time appellant further
offered 10 prove, "That on the conclusion
of the meeting at the Massasoit house
Erwin Davis said To Mrs. Cornue what
is the matter with Henryr (meaning
Henry A. Root Il thought he under
stood the arrangement between
us. He was to be in. That
speech OF his has cost some millions"
BY proof Of what transaction, incident
or act are we 90 find that John A. Davis
had conspired with his brother Erwin to
defraud other heirs Of their just rights OF
their share Of the estate? These brothers
had not met for more than 30 years except
for the brief space of two hours, some 10
years ago. until they met on that solemn
occasion at the Massssoit house on the
morning Of their brother Andrews fu-
neral. II was in evidence that no com
munication had recently passed between
them. Indeed il does not appear that
they had communicated with one another
for period Of 10 years. Up TO this time
the evidence shows no fact which gives
the slightes, color or credence 10 the allie
CATION OF such conspiracy. Even " we
take Mrs. Cornue's version Of her conver-
satiop with her uncle John as absolutely
true, there wasNo reference in il 10 the
fact that John and Erwin proposed to CO.
operate together. On the arrival OF John
at the Massasoit house in charge Of his de-
ceased brothers body, he found await
ing him several aged sisters, his
brother Erwin and number Of other rel
atives Of the deceased. John tells in his
testimony on cross examination what oc-
CURED both prior TO the funeral and after
the heirs. ltamounts 10 nothing more
than q narrative OF n hasty greeting bo-
tween these brothers and sisters who
scarcely met between youth and old age,
the preparations for the funeral. the jour
ncy Of 10 miles TO the burial place, the OBJ
sequieA, the return 20 the Massasoit house,
the partaking Of late dinner Of
which all partook. After which the
meeting occurred. No day was made 10
give convenient time and opportunity for
these alleged conspirators To meet in con-
sultation. John Is questioned on cross
examination as TO whether he had pri-
vate or secret conversation with his
brother Erwin on the day Of the funeral
prior 10 this meeting Of the heirs and
positively negatives all such questions.
None OF the seven witnesses who were
there and testified 10 the cir
cumstances intimate that such an
interview occurred so that up TO the
time Of the meeting We have no evidence
TO show that any such an alleged conspir-
acy had been formed. Neither Is there
any evidence TO show that John had any
knowledge Of Erwin's fraudulent designs,
II they existed. At the meeting John CO.
incided with one remark Of Erwin as to
the time IL would take TO settle the estate
ia Montana. II John A. Davis was con-
spring with his brother Erwin 10 carry
out the alleged fraudulent purpose, IL is a
strange circumstance thatJohn sat In said
meeting and heard Mr.. Root contra
dict Erwin both as To facts and as TO
the propriety of his advice To the heirs.
And yet John offered no remarks calcr-
lated To put Mr.. Root in false light. or
discredit his statement. IL Is not nat
ural for man desperate enough 10 con-
spre for the consummation II such ne
farious scheme inspired by the same
hopes, bent on achieving the same re-
suit, TO calmly and quietly sit by and
hear co-conspiratior contradicted as TO
his statements and challenged as 10
the expediency of his advice,
especially at the critical moment when
the silent conspirator might exert a strong
influence in the turning current Of action
In favor OF the common purpose.
Il is said that John should have risen
up and contradicted Erwin at said meet
ing. The record shows two good reasons
why he did not do this. First, John says
in his testimony that he said nothing TO
the heirs assembled there. that he had no
chance 10 do so; secondly, IL there was
any necessity for contradictine Er-
wins remarks at said meeting
Mr.. Root did 50 Immediately after
Erwin spoke. John A. was living in Mon
tana, tho trusted brother and COMPANION
Of Andrew, whose estate was the subject
of this alleged plot. Why the necessity
Of going 10 Montana land carry out the
arrangement, get charge OF the estate, "
ETC., IL John A. had joined or was relied
upon to join the others In consummating
this alleged fraud. II is in evidence that
Mr.. Root had been educated by his Uncle
Erwin until he arrived At the age of about
Is years. II also appears by the evidence
that at the time OF said interview
and for some time prior thereto Mr.. Root
was the attorney for his uncle Erwin, at
tending 10 most Of his law business, which
was considerable according 10 Mr.. Roots
own testimony. Shortly after said alleged
interview be came 10 Montana, arriving