The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-10-03

"
The only Pure Cream Of Tartar
Used in Millions Of HON
cont required the defendants to select one
attorney to cross. examine the Witnesses for
all The defendants. The defendants re-
fused. The court designated Donnelly's
attorney TO oross-examins for all defend.
point. The district court 10 reversed in
this opinion. The suprsme court holds
thAS thoaah the three defendants were
being jointly tried for a conspiracy. II may
readily have been that their interests were
have been suoh that tho policy Of the Dc.
tense Of one would not have been
that Of another. II may have been
to the advantage Of one defendant 10 bring
out facts from the witnesses. which fact
fsndant. II nay have been that one de-
fendant. or more, wsro innoeent.. or ono
defendant or more guilty. II such was the
onss the facts favorable to the innocent
may have been condsmnatory of the guilty.
Under ths circumstances above suggested.
defendants would DO adverse to each other.
Each counsel Was interested 70 make the
best case for his own client" The court
rules that though counsel for appellant was
allowed to make suggestions TO Donnelly's
counsel Of matter for eross-sxamination.
filtered through . medium which may have
been u%nfriendly TO him. and IL was not the
free sross-examination 10 which he was on
titled. The cause 10 rsmanded. Opinion
BY Justice Dewitt.
First National Bank VI. Henry Neil.
A,.nnai fsou, N{akv{AA NAavA ~ TAwSn md
Clarke county. The bank sued Henry
Neili, j. 8. NJ. Neill. Il. A. Boil and the
board OF county commissioner. Tbs OBJ
iect of the action was to reao oh funds al
legged to be In the hands of the county and
due TO Henry Neil! on the jail contract.
Henry Neill and sought to satisfy it BY this
action. It was shown on the trial in the
district court that the county had no funds
Of Nsill. but that tho funds they held be
loneed to Bell and N. j. Mcdonnell. The
district court refused to give the bank
supreme court. An important point Of
practice was 80 follows: The defendants
who obtained judgment. taxed up costs
against plaintiff. Plaintiff moved to retax
costs. The motion was granted. Plaintiff
asked tho district court to tax against the
taxing costs. This was refused by the dis
triot court. This action OF she district
court Ia reversed. The supreme court holds
that the provision for taxing q penalty of
$25 against . party wronafully taxing costs
is mandatory and not Discretionary. O0in-
district court of Silver Bow. Tho verdict
was for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a
new trial in the district court, and it was
granted. Plaintiff appeals from the grant
W., VA. o. ''ua] 4 oos ;,ys'. of Tho the iuTs." T Il sG ni:1
conduct was that tho jury resorted to what
is called the ''quotient process;'' that IL. the
Jury agreed that each member should write
down a sun which he thought plaintiff
should have; The sums should be added and
the result divided by twelve. and this re-
Tho district court held on q motion for a
now trial that that this was "a resort to the
determination Of chance" which 10 ground
for setting aside the verdict. So holds tho
supreme court in affirming the lower court.
II was long held in California that this WAS
not q resort TO chanoe. But since the opin-
ion OF the Montana supreme court was
written the California supreme court has
repudiated their forme position. Opinion
by Justice De Witt.
State rs. Middleton. Appeal from dis
trict court Of Beaverhead. Defendant
pleaded guilty to an information charging
him with practioinR medicine without a
certificate from the state board of medical
examiners. The district court fined him
800 and costs. The county attorney taxed
I'M a. costs . fee for drawing information
s., and trying case 500. Defendant moved
TO retAx these items. This was granted BY
tho district court and the state appeals.
The lower cont 10 sustained. The supreme
court holds that the county attorney may
not YAK up costs against a convicted de-
fendant under the law Of 1883, as that was
repealed by the law Of 1891. The latter law
provides 9 salary az the sole compensation
for the county attorney. The law does not
provide th.t tho county attorneys fees in
the law of 1889 hall be paid into the county
treasury, or 20 the county attorney. There
fore they should not BIZ taxed. Opinion by
Justice Dewitt.
Missoula Electric Light Company 70.
Morgan. This action was brought to re-
cover possession Of O piece Of land under the
statute forbiddine foroible entry and I'M
lawful d~etainer. Plaintiff recovered in the
justice court and again In the district court
OF Missoula county. whore ths case was sp-
pealed f,om tho justice. Defendant az
pealsd to the supreme court. He commended
shat she district court should have granted
his motion to dismiss the action because
the Justice did not render his decision
within four days after ths trial. instead of
On the nth day. This point was held I'M
tsnable. as the appeal to the district court
brought tho case up for trial de novo. The
supreme cou't further holds that the in
structions could not be reviewed on appeal
from the judgment, because the instruc-
lions we're not incorporated In the state
ment of the case or appeal. and that the
evidence could not be reviewed to see
whether il supported the verdict On an ap-
peal from the Judgment, ss that review
pertained to a new trial. Opinion by JUS
tice HarWood.
Woodman Va. Calkins. In this case sure
tics were sued on a bond and they claimed
they were not liable because the principal.
for whom the bond was given. did not also
sign the undertaking with the sureties.
But this pioa was not sustained by the
aupreme court. Tin court holds that the
s~u.eties were liable. and that the principal
WAS liable also in the Same action IL made a
party. because the bond was given in his
behalf and he received the attached money.
Opinion by Justice Harwood.
Butcher & Bradley. los Broadway. arc selling
fall and winter underwear At astonishing low
prices.
Ladies' fast black wsol hose for q cents this
week at The Bee Hive.
Children's dresses made Of those plaids at The