The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-01-22
SIX CASES.
Decided Yesterday By the state Supreme
Court.


Special Dispatch to the Standard.
HELENA, Jan. 2l.-The supreme court
handed down six opinions to-day as fol-
lows: State VS.. Fanny Hendricks; appeal
from Custer county. Judgment of lower
court confirmed. Opinion by Hunt.
Ii. Brundy VS.. Mayfield ct al. an appeal
from Silver Bow. This action was
brought to declare the defendants
trustees of tho plaintiff IN the Sioux Chief
lode claim in Summit Valley district.
Brundy aud the defendants were joint
owners in the claim. Defendants advcr-
tlsed Brundy out, and then proceeded to
patent the claim IN their own names. The
court below found that Brundy had not
forfeited his interest by failure to do his
part of tho representation work and de-
clared n trust in the mine in his favor
against defendants. The Judgment was
affirmed. Opinion by Dewitt.
Norris VS.. Burke. an appeal from Cas-
cade county. In this action suit was
brought by plaintiH against defendant, as
her agent, for the fraudulent appropria-
ton of money paid him to buy real estate.
The judgment of the court below was for
the plaintiff for 500, At tho end of the
trial the jury, after being instructed to
find for the plaintiff for 800 or in favor of
defendant, gave a verdict in due form for
$50. The lower court refused TO receive
the verdict The supreme court holds
that, under the circumstances, this was in
error, and reversed the case on account
thereof. Opinion by Dewitt.
Rocky Mountain Rauching company vs..
W. L. Savage, treasurer, and school dis
| tricts Nos. and 13 in Custer county. This
action was brought by tho plaintiff to en-
| join tho treasurer of Custer county from
| the collection of the special school taxes
| levied by the districts mentioned for the
| year 1890. The petition for injunction a.
! leges that tho plain iU did not live in dis
trict No. and that the district which was
| claimed TO bo district No. Is was not a
school district and had never been organ
| lied by law. lnc court below dismissed
| the complaint on tu5 ground that 1t had
| not stated cause of action. The su-
prone court holds that tho complaint
stated a good cause of action as TO both
districts and reverses the judgment.
Opinion by Pemberton.
| Doyle VS.. Gore. an appeal from Cascade
| county. This was a suit to recover dam
ages for assault and battery committed
on defendant by plaintiff. In the trial of
| the case it appeared that the defendant
after the assault and battery, had bron
| lflct auu tOnFlcleu DelOfe JUSTICE OF tue
peace. In the trial of the case for
damages, the court below permitted the
| plaintiff to introduce in evidence a tran
script of tho judgment of the justice Of
the peace, who had tried tho criminal
case, for the purpose of proving that the
| assault and battery had been committed.
| The supreme court holds that tho tram
script was incompetent as evidence to
prove that fact, and the judgment is re-
versed. Opinion by 2emberton.
| Tuttlc vs.. Hardenburg, an appeal from
| Dawson county. THIS action was brought
| by Tuttle, cx-sheriR of Dawson, 10 recover
damages on an indemnifying bond. lie
sustained the damages 10y levying an at
| tachmcnt in a suit Instituted by Harden
burg against other parties. The property
attached was claimed by third parties.
On the trial Of the suit of Hardenburg
against the original defendants tho latter
obtained judgment. Thercupon the third
| parties claiming the property brought suit
| ani recovered damages of the sheriff tor
| levying ths attachment. The sheriff
| thcreupon brought suit az tinst Harden
| burg and his sureties on the in lrmnifylug
! bond. In the trial of the case tho district
| court sustained n demurrer IL Tuttlc's
complaint aud the latter appealed. The
| supreme court revcrses the judgment sus-
| tanning the demurrer, aud remands the
case for trial. Opinion of Dewitt.