The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-05-24
" DR. And HIS NOTES
Specialist Schultz Comes Out Win
ner In This Particular Heat.
ANOTHER PARTY ASSISTS
And BY a Series of Manipulations
He Frees Himself From a Com
pllcated Mess--Mrs. Barry
Seeks to Recover insurance.

Butte. May 24.-The Schultz family
had another inning in Judge Speer's
court to-day, and the great special
ist' won a substantial victory through
a technicality of the law. Some time
ago DIR" Carl Schultz. A. A. Lisker
and John O'Rourke executed a note to
the First National bank for $500. 1t
was given by the three men for the
Northwestern Brick and Supply COM
pany. of which Schultz was president
The note reached maturity and about
the same time the specialist" got tan
gled up in another note case i'm which
victim had given him a note for a
small fee. and which he raised by add
ing another cypher to the amount. The
officers wanted the specialist" for that
little piece of work. and the special
list" skipped out. The telegraph was
little swifter than he was and he
was overtaken in Helena and brought
back by Marshal McNichols The mar
shall got over $1,000 i'm money from the
festive specialist" and as soon as he
arrived i'm town the bank garnisheed
S3,OO1 of the money. but the marshal
refused to accept the garnishee until
Schultz gave him a written order sign
ed by himself and his wife. Mary
Schultz, to pay the money over TO the
bank, which was done. The note was
surrendered and marked paid.
The next turn in the case was that
Mrs. Schultz claimed that the money
taken from her husband belonged to
her, and that she took up the note as
negotiable paper, but that IL was not
paid and cancelled. She then trans
ferred the note to Fannie Matusewitz.
woman who has been recognized as
sister of Mrs. Schultz. although the
. latter in court this morning denied the
relationship. Matusewitz brought suit
| against Schultz, Lister and O'Rourke
| to recover the full amount of the note.
| Schultz, of course. allowed the case to
go by default. So did Lister, but on
| the representation of the Schultz fam
4 lily, so he claims, that judgment would
| not be taken against him until the af-
| fairs of the brick company were set
| tied up, and then he would be held
| only for his share of what would re-
| main unsatisfied. A default of judg-
| ment was, however, taken aginst him,
| and O'Rourke was the only one to
| make a fight against the peculiar and
| complicated transaction. ORourke
| claimed that Matusewitz was not the
| lawful owner of the note. that she had
secured 1t without consideration. that
| it had once been paid, and that the
| whole scheme was an attempt TO hold
| him for its payment and let Schultz
go. When the case was called for
| trial this morning Lisker, through his
| attorneys, +. Il. Howell and G. X.
Leonard. moved to have his default set
/
his defense. The motion was strongly
| opposed by Judge De Wolfe. counsel
| for Matusewitz, and j. l.. Wines, the
attorney for Schultz. Lisker's attor-
| neys said there was no question about
| the execution of the note. but that
| each maker of IL should be held equal
| " for it's payment. He said the default
| had been taken against him through
| his excusable neglect, and that he
| should not be held liable for the pay
ment of the whole note If IL should be
decided that Matusewitz was not the
| legal owner of II.
|. A number of affidavits were read
and after the arguments Judge Speer
| overruled the motion and decided
against Lisker.
| During the arguments Mr.. Leonard
| said that by the complaint in the case
the plaintiff was not entitled to judy
ment, as it was alleged that Schultz,
one of the makers of the note, had ne
gotiated it, which MIR. Leonard consid-
cred the most ridiculous state of af-
fairs ever set up in a complaint, and
| he said that he would move for Judg-
ment on the pleadings in the case
| against O'Rourke. When the court
| oVerruled Lisker's motion the attor-
| neys for the plaintiff took advantage
| of the hint given by Mr.. Leonard and
| asked permission to amend their COM
plant, which was granted by the
| court. and the case went over until to-
morrow morning.
The forgery case against "Dr;
Schultz. out of which grew the troubles
! over the note, is still pending against
| him and has been at issue since the
| 25th of last August.