The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-05-25

yon that u was the tntsntfon OF this plain |
tin to lew MAekmal upon Aha defendant.
seems 10 me IL too far fetched and INT 10
20 aubss!vs tho purposes for which ~ vas
.s;sndsd: Again; ws are told thss ; =
than the corporation, and had indtontsd In
this way that II was ous p%usrosss to comps!
thts COIN psny 10 buy Out this property. and
that W did not In good faith bolisvs that
We had = claim 10 u.
The exps tisno&of mankind with corpo-
rations, foreign OF domsstio, with their nm
stability and she facility with which they
can transfer thsiy- Srorerty and merge II
Into other aud different organisations has
taught the lawyer who looks to tho interest
OF his client the necessity Of looking after
bis cnss In such = manner mat whsn no
does recover . Judgment be will b able to
realize something from II. And to say the
least Of II. u 10 . question. and was 4 quss-
tion for the court 10 say whether or not the
circu instances brought the defendant within
the ruio that would nutho lie a rendition Of
ally, q when biz honor ruled that ons OF
the defendants 10 this Case was not liable.
and held tho other responsible under the
evidence for whatever damages she plaintiff
may have sustained, 1t was a vindication of
the right Of this plaintiff in this action to
join those parties n TO hold them respon'
sible 10 the same extent as tho corporation
30 that in 90 fix - this matter is cor.
cernsd, Il does seem to mo that you would
be justified in assnminR good faith upon
tbs part Of M. Mar0sr In instituaAg this
action. But above all we are told tuat this
than We have been able to prove, and held
at such . high hguts for the purpose Of
making these defendants purchase our
property.
ut IL n principle of law. not only within
the great country IN which this corporation
was organized. bus a doctrine of the oom-
mon law. that no difference what may DO
enforcing his rights. they cut no figure IN
determining those rights. II YOU are the
ownsr OF q house and lot In tho city OF
Helena and some ono has intruded into tho
possession OF that properly. and you wish
10 institute . suit to eject him from 1t ns an
that you desired to get him out for the
purpose Of selling him your prop
erty; II could NOT be urged
against you that you wero DESTROYS Of get
ting him out for the purpose Of making q
speculation in any other way with references
makes nc difference what was the pur pose
OF the owner; that the jury should deter.
mine what are tho rights OF the individual
to the property itsslf regardless OF what his
purpose or object may be. In 90 far then
40 this matter 10 concerned as . matter OF
UIk10lVl0 ] D UU0 ~ lOukk06t ~ y wv
trim Of the law that would support the
idea that you should take into considera-
ton the purposes or reasons that impel n
man TO vindicate bis rights in q court Of
justice. Whom those questions are pre-
ssnted to You, you strip them Of all such
inAuence., you strip them Of al feelings
count Of the parties TO the suit and pro-
coed to determine tho respective rights of
tho individuals that are litiGatibg the case.
But this 10 not all. There il q feature In
this case which makes the assaults that
were made upon Mr.. Mayor cruel In the
extreme.
ut Il in evidence before you that In 1887
an application was made BY Mr.. Mayer to
these defendants to get beneath the surface
of the ground to see what they were doing
below before no would commence suit TO
advise himgelf with reference to all the
facts before he would venture upon a sea OF
to DO 20. and Mr.. Cullen. who has stepped
so far outside OF the duties that he yves to
his client a. suggested to you during the
progress of this trial from beginning to
end. said TO Mr.. Mayer. 'You can't got into
our premises; You shall see. nothing under
ground until you bring your suit n
after fo.cing him into that position. after
compelling him a. a last resort. without an
opt ortunity to soc the inyasions, whatever
they might have been. to bring this suit, he
turns upon him In tho court room aud
says to him: Sir, you are a blackmailer
fo+ bringing your suit;' putting him in the
situation where he might say to him. You
shall not see what we have done without
bringing your suit. and if you bring a suit
We will charge you with blackmnil.' II
this 10 the kind of charity. il this 10 the
kind Of treatment that an individual is to
receive when he does the only thing he can
do. brings his suit to try his rights before
you you may 40 we'll dash asunder the
balance that have been held for age by
tho goddess Of Justice"
During the course OF his argument upon
the character of the st. Louis vein Mr..
Toole caused some laughter. He had oc-
casion to refer to the diamond drill co es
produced in evidence by the Montana COM
pany. and which it is alleged came from
the ground OF the plaintiff. Mr.. Toole said
the cores reminded him of a little story
about soma sausages at Virginia City in the
territorial days. The character of the sau-
sages was in doubt. They were dried up,
and possibly minernlizs I'd. he said. They
were given to an sssayer who reported that
the links werc animal and vegetable and
were made Of a dog but he could not deter
mine what dog or whose dog 1t was.
The court adjourned at the conclusion OF
Mr.. Tools's Argument and will convene at
10 a. m. to-day when the instructions to the
jury will be given.