The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-05-29

How did you know he was in Hell
ena?"
He wrote to my wife"
Where is that letter now?"
Il dunno
Where did you find him in Helena %
AT 800 and something Broadway; 1
dunno"
What did he pay you with?''
"In bills"
Where were you when arrested?'
AT the depot"
What were you doing there?"
Walking for fun
Were you not in a box caro-
"Nuzzer."
Were you not trying to get into a
box caro-
"Nizzer. nuzzer.'
The doctor" was then permitted to
give his account of the transactions at
the bank after he had been brought
back to Butte. and said that Mr.. Davis
had agreed to sell the note to Mrs.
Schultz and that he said he was glad
to get rid of the note. as he had too
many of Mr.. O'Rourke's notes. The
doctor" denied that Mr.. Davis said in
the presence of himself, Mr.. Haldorn
and Mr.. Booth that he would not sell
the note or that the bank was not SELL
Ing its paper.
Before the doctor" had concluded
his testimony, court adjourned for the
noon recess. and when it resumed
Judge DE Wolfe announced to the court
that he had been very much surprised
by the evidence so far introduced. and
as the other testimony would be merely
corroborative. he recognized that a
Judgment could not be secured for the
plaintiff. or, II il could. that il would
not stand. He had therefore advised a
dismissal of the case, but that his
client, listening to the advice of others,
70. Il fuF -ral Of no
tion and insisted that the trial should
go on. The attorney recognized that
the right action to be sought was one
for contribution against Lisker and
O'Rourke. Therefore" said Judge De
Wolfe, regardless of the wishes of my
clients and acting solely i'm view of my
responsibility, l am obliged to come
into court and ask for the dismissal of
this action. / will also ask that the de-
faults of judgments against Carl
Schultz and a. a. Lisker be set aside.
In asking this l act also on the advice
of my co-counsel, Mr. Wines. | am
obliged to either follow blndly the
wishes of my clients or the dictates of
my own judgment"
Attorney Leonard said he questioned
the authority of Judge De Wolfe to
dismiss the case without the consent
of the plaintiff, and he suggested that
the court question her regarding her
and said that the plaintiff was repre-
scented by attorney and that the latter
had full control of the case and not
bound to follow his clients wishes
when his judgment did not approve
it,"
While the talk was going on between
the attorneys and the court. DR."
Schultz sat frowning in a corner and
his wife paced the floor with ill-con-
cealed anger and she walked up to
Judge De Wolfe and exclaimed
Il don't want this dismissed" but
her protest was OF no avail. The court
ordered the whole action to be dis
the defaults and judgment against Lis
ker and Schultz be set aside.
After the dismissal of the note case
the suit of Charles Maule against Carl
Schultz was called for trial. DeWolfe
and Wines again appeared for the
Schultzs. Maule sued for S6i7 alleged
to be due as rent on the brick building
at the corner of Galena and Main, and
at one time occupied as a drug store
by Schultz. Maule also sued for SIS on
an assigned account and alleged to be
due a man for clerlxing in the store.
SChultzs defense was that in February,
1898, he entered into lease with Maule
whereby he was to have the building
for $500, and to pay $3.50 a month until
the whole amount was paid off lie de-
MED that his wife had any interest in
the lease, but claimed that he sub
leased "a portion of the building to her.
end that from that and another tenant
he made $500 a month out of the build
ing. In October he secured reduction
of rent to 5000 a month, and a few
months later he received notice from
Maule to vacate. Similar notice was
served on Mrs. Schultz and the other
tenant, and the latter Immediately va
~ fan 10 nd ~ fF.fsfs
thereby claims damages in the sum OF
81, $50, for which amount he demanded
judgment against Maule. The evidence
as in the previous suit, had it's sur
prises.
The whole case hinged on the lease.
of which duplicate copies were present
ed. The copy held by Maule's agent.
Jaeger & Collins, and introduced as
evidence. provided that the lessee could
not suitcase the property without the
written consent of the lessor and fur
Their provided that a violation of any
OF the terms of the lease should term
mate IL. In the copy held by Doctor
Schultz, and upon which the defense
relied, these provisions were marked
out Both copies bore the signature of
Schultz. The trial of the case was not
concluded when court adjourned for
the day.
In the suit for partition of James A.
Murray against Adolph Pincus. de-
cree of partition was signed, decreeing
that each was entitled to a half inter
est i'm lots Z and s, in block 81, and the
partition should be made by a public
sale and division of the proceeds, the
sale to be conducted by A. j.. March
and, the referee.
The demurrer to the information i'm
the case against John Sheehan was
submitted to Judge Speer without argu-
ment. and taken under advisement I'M
til next Monday.
New Mil at Bear Guich.
Rniin my CT G McC.nirn e In .hn