The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-07-18
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Four Opinions Written by Chief
Justice Psmberton Handed
Down Yesterday.
Tho Noted Mary Glenn Assault
and Battery Case, From Mis-
soula, Argued.
She wastsd . Change u Venus 1S6us =
Police Magistrate Court and
Was Released

The supreme court met yesterday moSn-
ing with Chief Justice Psmbsston and As
sooiats justices Dewitt and HaEwood on
the ben oh. Four opinions were handed
down. Arguments we're made In . noted
Missoula case entitled the state u rel Mary
Glenn ". j. N. Evans. Mary Glenn was
charged In Police Justice EvanG ooust q
Missoula with assault and battery. 6hs
made . motion for . change Of veHss,
which the court refused. Then her attos-
uey offered, il her absence. TO plead auilsy
or 20 TO trial. Two cash bonds amountinR
n $3.50 we're declared forfeited BY che JUS
tice and he ordered her to DO brought Into
court and tried. She was found guilty and
fined. The proceedings yesterday were on
o writ Of certiorari TO review the proceed
inQs In tho lower court. Miss Ella L.
Kuowlss~ appeared on behalf Of the state.
Albert !. Lseb represented Mary 0lsin.
II WAS his frst argument in
tho supreme court and WAS pre-
nouuosd by the lawyers present to b
an able effort. Mr.. Losb studied law With
Toole q Wallace and 10 a graduate Of Ann
Arbor. Ihe oass was taken under advise
mont. The following opinions were rem.
dered, all being written BY the chief jus
tioe:
Horsky, Miller & Go. ". tho Helena Con.
solidsted Water company respondent and
defendant. Suit for an injunction. Ihe
,esrondent made a contract ON Fob. 10.
1887. with Geo. +. Woolston 70 finnish
water for ten years for brewing 2 osner
purposes. Woolston organized ths Hal.
in the contract TO ths company 2 the
company received The contract. On Jan.
"a. 1891, the company refused to recognize
the contract and was about TO eut on She
water because the respondent refused TO
ray prices higher than tho contract prices.
to the complaint. The judgment OF The
lower court 10 reversed. The respondent
commended that the complaint did not dis
close q valuable confederation for tho as
sumption Of tho contract BY the respond
ont. In the opinion of the supreme court
il does.
Peter Schuttler and Christopher Hotz ".
j.. II. King, defendant and appellant. Suit
on a promissory note alleged to be lost.
j. r. King and Wheatly Bros. Of Boze-
man. made q note to King for 1878. "a. duo
Sept. 10, 1886. On Jan. 3. 1887, $91.69 was
psid on n. the note; The hn. az dsfs ma w. W..
On June 4, 1892, An appeal was taken. The
eontention being that the complaint did
not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause OF action. Among the appellants
points was one to the effect that the com
plant should have averred that the defend
ant ever made any promise to pay any sum
Of n or facts from which such . prom
ise is bv law implied. Judgment affirmed.
Jno. W. Hopkins vs. Butte and Montana
Commercial company. defendant and APP
psllsnt. Hopkins was the owner OF a ranch
in Cascade county. Deep crock flows
through II. In July. 1891, the defendants
was floating logs down the stream to ito
mills at Great Falls and had erected large
dams above tho ranch to assist in floating
the logs down when water was low. A jam
formed that obst. uoted the natural flow OF
the water. The jam suddenly broke and
caused the stream TO overflow tho banks
damaging lands and crops Of Hopkins.
Judgment was entered for respondent and
a motion for O new trial ovetruled. The
supreme court says the court below ignored
the question Of negligence. The case is 10.
mnnded for a new trial.
F. A. KrieQer ct al, VI. w. A.. Smith. de-
PENDANT and appellant. The respondents
recovered Judgment for goods purchased by
the appellants wife ana charged to him.
From this Judgment the appeal was taken.
The RESPONDENTS are merchants at Living
ston. The judgment 10 affirmed.