The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-06-18
SHORT CAUSE CASES
A New Rule Established by the
Supreme Court.
OPINIONS BY THAT BODY
Granite County Case of the Weln-
stein Estate VS.. a ST. Louis
Broken Settled Favorably
to Coquard.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

'fN'hti bAsPaAehtpsh w wv 'Atuuhu
Helena, June 1.-THE supreme court
made a new rule to-day in order to
hurry along the hearing and determi-
nation of appeals. 1t provides that
when counsel In an appealed case
which has been on file six months files
a written stipulation that 1t can be ar
gued In Is minutes It will be placed on
the short cause" docket.
AS many short cause" cases as pcs
slble will be argued every Monday.
Cases may also be advanced to the
short cause" docket on the courts
own motion. particularly cases depend
Ing solely on former decisions OF the
court.
The following decisions were render
ed: Elkhorn Trading company. appel
liant, vs. Tacoma Mining company and
w. II. Rust. respondent: from jefferson
county; action for debt contracted by
the company. Judgment being asked
against Rust, also on grounds that as
one Of the trustees OF the Tacoma conf
pany he neglected TO file the annual
statement required by law. By stipula-
tion the Elkhorn company was allowed
TO recover judgment for sl.607. the la
bility of Rust being left at issue to be
decided by the court on pleadings.
Rusts defense was that George Bott-
cher was bookkeeper for both concerns
When the Tacoma company asked for
statement of Its account with the
Elkhorn company Bottcher said the
latter owed the Tacoma company moth
Ing and advised Rust not to make an
annual statement. Later a claim was
presented against the Tacoma COM
pany. The trial court found these facts
constituted n defense for Rust. AZ
firmed. opinion by Justice Dewitt.
l.. A. Coquard. respondent. VS.. Tcs-
sic Weinstein. Administrative. appel
liant: from Granite county. Coquard. a
st. Louis broker. purchased for Will
lam WeinsteIn 500 shares of stock Of
the Elizabeth mine. for which he ad-
vanced 1862. He sued for balance due
him Of s5s7. Defense was a counter
claim: that Coquard was ordered to
sell the stock at the highest market
rate in st. Louis. then si.90: that he
sold 200 shares at 81 and failed To sell
the other: and that by such failure
Weinstein was damaged 5000. Coquard
claimed he offered to sell the whole
block when ordered. but was unable to
find "A purchaser for more than 200
shares at market price. On trial CO.
guard won. Supreme court finds he
acted in good faith and ailirms the
trial court. opinion by Justice Hunt.
Charles q. Kendall. administrator Of
Amelia II. Kendall. appellant. va. II. T..
O'Neal. from Chotcau: action To re-
cover value of hay seized by O'Neal as
sheriff. The hay was claimed by Mrs.
Kendall as her separate property. The
jury found for her. A new trial was
granted. an appeal was taken on the
ground that the motion for new trial
was not filed within the required time.
IL appears the trial court grant
ed two extensions in which To prepare
the motion. Appellant contends that
the court had no jurisdiction to grant
the second extension. The supreme
court holds that the trial court was
right and afiirms the order for q new
trial. opinion by Chief Justice Perm
berton
George Neimlck. appellant, VS.. Amcri-
can Insurance company. respondent
from Lewis and Clarke county. Nei-
mick insured his house for 81 800 on
June 3. 1872 The following September
1t WAS burned. After the fir, Il de-
veloped that Neimick had other in
surancc amounting to $3.50 in other
companies. The jury brought in a gen
eral verdict for Neimick. but found
that the building was only worth $1,000
and that the American company's
agent did not know OF the additional
sl.s00 insurance. The trial court set
aside the general verdict and gave
judgment on special findings for de e
fendants. Affirmed. opinion by chief
Justice Pcmbcrton.
State ex rel. Peter Varovitich ct al.
respondents. vs.. A. 6. Votaw, Justice
of the peace, appellant; from Lewis
and Clarke. Notaw rendered Judgment
for Yarovitch In a case brought
against him. but afterwards set It aside
and granted A new trial. The district
court held that he exceeded his jurls-
diction in doing So. more than 10 days
having elapsed between the entry Of
Judgment and the filing OF a motion for
new trial. Affirmed.
Samuel Brunell. appellant. vs. Harry
Logan ct al, respondents; from Mis-
soula county. The appeal is dismissed
on the ground that there was no judg-
ment in the record.
J. NJ. Watkins, ct al. appellants. VS..
Moses Morris ct al, respondents: from
Lewis and Clarke. Suit on a contract
to recover the difference between the
price received for shipment of oats
and what the defendants had To pay.
The defendants refused to receive, al
leging failure 10 deliver in reasonable
time Judgment was for defendants.
Aftirmed