The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-10-05
Ruth r. Leggat, of Missouri, Says
They Defrauded Her OF
Sundry Sums.
The Findings OF the Jurors Held
to the Same Opinion as
She Did.
Now he Cases Go to tho Supreme Court
on the Alleged Errors and
Teohnicalities.

Two appeals were filed In the supreme
court yesterday, Ruth j. Leegat being the
plaintiff and respondent In both cases.
In one Of them John A.. Leggat and Rod
eriok ID. Leggat are joint defendants and
appellants, and In the other Rodsrick ID.
LegGat occupies that position alone The
two mon against whom she brought actions
are brothers OF her late husband, Alexander
j. Leggat. The case against the two was
based on the following allegations: Mrs.
Leggat says she owned a third interest in
the Old Glory mining claim in Silver Bow
county. On Dec. Ii, 1887. she appointed
Roderiok Lepgst her agent to sell her real
estate. On May s, 1883, she says Rodsrick
sold her interest in tho Old Glory claim 70
his brother, John A. Leggat, for $1,000.
She allegss that the sale was fraudulent and
collusive and that the property was worth
five times as much. In support OF this
claim she said q small part Of the surface
of the third of the mine was sold for $4,000
(none of which has ever been accounted
for to hsr); also that a large part of
Centol vile 10 built OF the property. When
che found out that she had been
induced to part with the property for less
than its value, she offered John Legsat the
$1,000 he had paid for it, with interest. and
asked him to reconvey it to her. which he
refused to do. The indings Of ths court at
Butte were that all the allegations were
proved and that the deed was illegal and
fraudulent. John A. LeRgat was held to be
the ttustee of the premiser and rents; thas
he had received $l,50O on account thereof;
and that after dedueting the amount sufii-
cient to make good her tends for a recon
veg ance, with interest. he owed his sister-
in-law $3.50. He was ordered TO reconvey
the property TO Mrs. Leggat. Among the
grounds of appeal from this decision 1t was
stated that John Leggat had conveyed the
property to his brother Alexander
as q mortgage to secure $500. and
that ita subsequent passing into
Johns hands was not a purchase, but
a redemption; also that there WAS no evil
dence of fraud; and that Mrs. LegRat
scquiesced in the purchase after knowing
all the facts.
In the case against Roderick L. Leggat
alone, Ms. LegRat says she made him her
agent to dispose Of her third interest in she
| Leggat and Foster addition in Butte, and
that he got her by fraud to transfer her
/ part to him for $4,000, concealing its true
| value. In This case, as in the other, she
made tender of the amount Of purchase
money and interest through John A.. Leg
gat, who had superseded his hSother as her
agent. for a reconveyance. which was re-
fused. Tue court found that John A. Leg
| gat had sold his own third interest to Chas.
$. Warren for $4,000; that Warren had
offered Rodeiiok LegRat $4,000 for his
sister-in-law's interest: that she was not
informed Of Warren's offer, nor of the fact
that the Montana Central railway and a
SIT est railroad were projected through the
property, thereby increasing it's value; that
$4,000 was not n fair price for the property,
and that it been obtained by deceit; also
that Roderick LsgRat had received 500
from the sale OF parts of the property. In
this case, as in the other, an account ing
and a rsoonveyance was ordered.
Both cases will go before the supreme
court at once, the papers having been re-
ceived yesterday.