The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-24
Mr.. LARGENT TALKS
BE Expresses His Views in Regard to
an Old Suit.
IN DEFENSE OF HIS ACTION
The Attorney Says the City Was
Benefited by the Plan He Fol-
lowed In the Matter and
Tells How 1t Was.

Great Falls. Nov. 2s.-Referring to
the article published in to-day's Stand
ard regarding the dismissal of the suit
Of the City of Great Falls against the
bondsman of the late city treasurer, p.
j. Elliott, for an alleged shortage OF
$4,000. ex-City Attorney Largent called
at the Standard office tonight and
made the following statement: In Sep
tember, 1898, the city council ordered
ne to bring suit on Elliotts bonusmen
for the shortage and to attach all the
property of the bondsmen. l prepared
the papers for such a claim. and before
fling the same the bondsrnen and Q.
NJ. Webster appeared before the coun-
Gil and stated that IL suit was
brought and attachment made on the
property at that time, II would result
in closing up several business houses in
the city, as well as putting the Security
bank in the hands OF a receiver. was
then ordered by the council to postpone
the case indefinitely. Several months
afterwards the councilmen ordered me
to bring suit against said bondsmen,
. but not TO attaoh the property. draft
ed my complaint, asking for Judgment
against the bondsmen for $780, which
think any reasonable attorney would
AVE done in view of the fact that
here was more than $21, 900 of the cbty's
Money dn the then suspended First Ma
- tonal bank, more than S21, 900 In THE
ten suspended Merchants National
bnk, and about $500 in the Security
bank, a grand total of more than $780,
O0t the penal sum of the bond being
$1,000
Il Is fair to presume that in a case
OF this magnitude the costs would
equl the difference between the short
agelnd the amount of the bonds. AFTER
the complaint was filed the defendants
attorneys moved ito strike out part
of tie complaint upon certain grounds,
oneof them being that a demand was
mao on the legal representatives OF
the principal in the bond The court
sawfit ito grant such motion and then
hadthe public administrator make APP
plidJtion to the court to be appointed
administrator of the estate of p. j.
Flbut, deceased. The court saw fit TO
rehse to grant letters of administra-
ito to said public administrator, sam
ue Dean. then filed my amended
complaint, setting out such facfs with
reerence with the legal representative
ofP, ]. Elliott, but in the meantime
til banks had paid over ITO the city
prtion of the funds, so that there re-
mined a shortage of only $23,OOO, Tot
which amount asked for Judgment in
ny amended complaint.
1.-The defendants moved to strike out
ADOrllOn Oh IH1 duhChdSA
which motion, think, was granted an
february or March, 1895. The court
ten gave me the privilege of amend
Ing my amended complaint and That
tine / desired to consider whether VI
vas necessary or not, and before sucn
Amendment was made my term of Of
fire expired and my successor assumed
tie duties of city attorney.
ST maintain that the last complaint
fled states a cause of action and that
recovery can be had thereupon, and
am not aware that the court has de-
clared the complaint defective in any
manner whatever; at least the records
of tie count do not so state. AT the
time the first complaint was filed
against the bondsmen, If the case had
been rushed ito it's final termination.
they would have been involved in liti-
gatlcn over $4,000. which would have
been tied UP and the county had no use
thereof until the case was finally de-
termined in the supreme court, which
doubtless would not have been reached
at this date.
by the delay on my part the city
has received all of the 100000 or more,
except $4,000, the shortage that re-
mains ait this time which, I think, JUS
titles my claim on my part, as the city
has been largely benefited thereby, and
has had the use of a large sum OF
money that would have been tied up In
litigation had i seen fit to prosecute
the case vigorously at first. 1T Is fair
TO presume that the new attorneys APP
pearing in the action would differ from
my opinion as to the legality of the
complaint, because as a general rule
attorneys do differ in their opinions at
times.
LAS to the present complaint being
defective, I fully intended TO amend
the same before trial was had, IL II
needed amending. but think Vt states
a good case of action and that recov-
cry of shortage may be had. You will
see by this statement that the citizens
of Great Falls have been benefited by
discretion having been used with refer
ence TO taking vigorous action against
the late city treasurer's bondsmen
and ann quite sure that no reasonable
person could very we'll craticise any
action on my part with reference 10
this litigation. which has benefited the
people rather than having injured
them"