The Anaconda standard., 1895-05-21
In THE HIGH COURT
-Four Opinions Handed Down Yestsr-
day in Helena. ~
MUST PAY A BIC REBATE


special Dispatch to tbs Standard. I
Helena, May 20.-The supreme court
handed down four opinions to-day. as
follows: icn = 1 !
John b. Legatt appellant. vs Henry
Prideaux. respondent, appealed from
Beaverhead. Action was brought
against Prideaux. a justice OF the
peace, for recovery of 10 times the
amount OF certain fees received by the
Justice In excess of the fees, allowed by
law. The defendant admitted the ex-
cessive charges. but relied upon: First
-ignorance or the law; second That
piaintin well knew that the fees were
excessive and kept silent and permitted
the charge to be made for the bringing
OF this suit. when had he informed de-
fendant OF such excessive charge. de-
iendant would have gladly reduced
tnem. Third-That prior to q demand
ne discovered the mistake and imme-
diateIy rendered the amount sof the ex-
cessive charges. but plaintiff refused
the same. Plaintiff denied the tender
OF the amount OF Illegal fees. THE case
went against Leggatt in the lower
court. and plaintiffs complaint was
dismissed and costs awarded the de-
fendant. Plaintiff appealed. the action
or the court In sustaining defendants
motion for judgment being assigned
as an error. The supreme court says
tnat, even though the justice of peace
acted In good faith in taking and col
lecting the fees. II would constitute no
defense. Ignorance of the law is no
excuse. Further. even II plaintiff knew
the charges were excessive ana did not
INFORM, the justice was not material
to this case. The argument that a ten
der back when he discovered his err
ror should relieve respondent, the court
does not agree with. The supreme
court reverses the judgment of the
lower court, which means that Pri- |
deaux viii have to pay the statutory
penalty or 10 times the amount of the |
fees wrongfully collected by him. |
Opinion by Justice Hunt
Edward Hirschler ct al, appellants, |
VS.. William McKendricks: from Lewis |
and Clarke. Action to quiet alleged IL |
tie to the Rose Cleveland mining lode.
The claimants claim was located by |
in 1891, thre years after
the location OF the Rose Cleveland.
The latter claim was not REPRESENTED |
IN 1889 and 1890. and McKendricks
claimed foffeftdref on that account.
Defendant secured a verdict In the
ower scourtdquieting his title in the
premises. and plaintiffs moved for a
new trial, which was denied and
plaintiffs appealed. The supreme court
affirms the judgment OF the CLOVER
court. Opinion by Justice Dewitt.'S: +
Elijah s. Gillian. respondent. VS. A.
II. Black; appealed from Gallatin, An
lction to foreclose mechanics lien on a
building In Belgrade. Gillian alleged
contract by which he was to have re-
'eived $3.50 a day on completion Of the
work. The evidence showed the con-
ract had been made with Alexander
Bros, who was not made a party. to
he suit. On trial the court .overruled
! motion for non suit. which the su-
'reme court holds was an error Black
lot being a contractor. was not per-
onally liable to Gillian. Judgment re-
ersed and cause remanded. Qpinion
" Chief Justice Pemberton. sbe.r
Louis Zickler. respondent. VS.. Ross
began and Thomas Moran. appellants;
rom Jefferson. Plaintiff and DEFEND
nts entered into a contract in refer
nee to certain mining claims, which
ontract was In the nature of a lease
rom plaintiff to defendants Upon
laking a discovery the defendants re-
'cated the claim in violation or their
'ase and plaintiff brought this action
quiet his title to the premises
gainst all claims of defendants and
DR. an injunction to restrain defend
nts from interfering with his posses
on of the claim. PLAINTIFF also
aimed that defendants had not ac-
ounted for $1,000 worth of ore as per
ontract. Plaintiff secured a general
erdict against defendants and was
wen possession OF the property. De-
'ndants appealed and the supreme
,urt affirms the judgment of the lower
,urt. Opinion by Justice Dewitt