Great Falls weekly tribune., 1895-07-12
RESTRAIN VOGEL
Is the Order to Judge Benton From
the Supreme Court in the
Paving Suit.
THE JUDGES WANT THE FACTS
Before They Determine the Points of
Law lnvOlved--Other Cascade
County Cases.
uecial to the Tribune.

HELENA, July Sin the case of Will
mer Atkinson ct al, plaintiffs and appel
lants, versus tbs city OF Great Falls,
Henry Vogel ct AL, defendants and re-
epondents, the supreme court says: ut
would seem that if the city has taken
the proper steps under the law to assess
the property Hbutting on the street in
tended to be paved with the cost Of the
Improvement, and if it has, in entering
into the contract, expressly and clearly
excepted and protected itself from any
liability for the cost, and the liability
created by the contract is confined to the
special fund created by the special as
soesment upon the property abutting on
the street to be paved, and the contractor
has expressly agreed to accept the fund
raised by the special assessment and ex-
pressly waived all right to hold the city
in any wise liable for the cost of paving.
then the contract would not create such
an indebtedness of the city as is prohb
tied by the constitution"
1T is possible that after 4 full exam
nation of the authorities bearing on the
question involved determination could
be reached on TIE record, but as the
briefs and arguments are almost wholly
directed towards the eingie issue of what
was the indebtedness Of the city al the
date of the contract. and as it is import
ant that a decision on the motion for
nor. suit Ec made without delay, we pre-.
fer to reeerve any decision on legal ques
tiOne until the facts are more clearly
before us, and until argument may he
had on euCh other points as are prob
ably involved when the facts are tnally
determined. Judgment reversed and
cause remanded for new trial and tnc
district court ordered and advised 70
issue a restraining order until the cause
is finally determined
H II. Nelson, plaintiff and appellant
vs Moore Spears. defendant and re
spondent Plaintiff sued defendant iu
the district court Of Cascade county to
recover 5000 claimed to be due for hay
and other persona! property. \ verdict
was returned for defendant for 5000.
Plaintiff moved for Il now trial, which
was denied, and from the order refus-
ing new trial an appeal wa. taken,
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Opinion by pemberton chief justice,
John W, Hopkins plaintiff and re
mercia! company, defendant and appel
liant. Plaintiff recovered judgment for
:Gl1 for damages caused by defendant
flooding bis land while driving logs on
Deep creek. Defendant appealed from
the judgment and from an order deny
ing a new trial. The principal conten-
tioI was that the evidence did not sus-
tain the verdict in that it was not shown
that the damages were OccasiOned by
negligence. After reviewing the evil
dence the court affirmed the judgment
of the lower court and made an order
denying new trial. Opinion by De-
Witt
The state, plaintiff. vs. Henry Brett,
defendant and appellant. The defendant
appealed from conviction of forgery.
He filed motion to quash the informa-
ton because he was not legally commit
ted and is not legally held in this, that
the said information does not charge
the defendant with the offense which he
was held to answer, or any other otfense
disclosed before the committing magis,
trate for forging an order for the pay
ment of monies of the city of Helena to
one j. Patrick, and the otfense disclosed
at his hearing relates to such otfense
alone anG no charge was made or facts
disclosed at such hearing in regard to
the otfense charged in said information,
or either of them. nor was he held there
for" The court overruled the motion.
The opinion is by Judge Hunt and sus-
taius the lower court