The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-05-05
AFTER A BRIEF REST
The State Supreme Court Settles DOwr
to business.
NINE CASES ARE DECIDED
Questions of Civil Procedure In
Voived-Regardlng Water Rights
and Mineral Locations
The New Council

to-day returned nine opinions, severa
Oh them being of unusual general i'm
portance Some of the decisions in.
VoiVe questions of civil procedure. min.
ing locations and water rights and
rights OF county commissioners to ex.
tend the debt of counties. Following
are the cases decided:
STATE or Montana ex rel CJ Milsted
lespohoent, VS.. the Butte City Water
company, appellant The plaintiff
1.orought mandamus proceedings 70
Sonipei the defendant to furnish him
water Tor general use at his house in
Butte. The defendant refused upon
lhe ground that. under it's rules. Il
would only deal with owners of pron-
erty, and the plaintiff, being a tenant.
water need not be furnished him. The
court holds that, while the defendant
company can make any reasonable
regulations, yet any rule which con-
hlcts with their franchise is invalid.
ana. as their franchise requires them
10 furnish water to Inhabitants OF
butte, any inhabitant who is a tenant
ana pays rent demanded, may receive
water and the company is Obliged to
furnish the same to him. Judgment is
aInrmed. Opinion by Justice Hunt.
Alex ,. Gillespie. respondent va
Henry Dion, appellant. Gillespie and
DION were candidates for treasurer of
/ lawson county in 1894. A certificate of
, erection was issued to Dion. Gillespie
contested the election, alleging thar a
mistake had been made in the count.
Inc district court decided there had
been a tie vote and that the office was
vacant. Dion appealed and has had
possession of the Office since The su-
preme court decides that Gillespie did
not present hts case properly and dis
misses the proceedings for lack of tu-
rlsdlction. Judgment reversed. Opinion
by Justice Hunt.
Gillespie VS.. Dion, same decision as
foregoing.
G. w. Hoffman ct al. RESPONDENTS
VS. the board of county commissioners
OF Gallatin county ct al. This was an
action by the taxpayers of Gallatin
caunty TO prevent the commissioners
from delivering certain bonds 10 the
Farmers & Mechanics bank of Minne-
aTclfs, MINI. The commissioners at
ternpted to borrow $50 900 from a bank
in Bozeman. The bank then fled its
claims for the amount. The board then
ordered warrants issued for the
amounts and that bonds be issued and
sold to take up the bonded indebted
ness of the county. The district court
entoined the commissioners. The ques-
tion is whether or not the commission
ers had the power to borrow the $50 600
in the form of several loans.
without submitting 1T to vote of the
people fer approval. The supreme
court decides that, as the constitution
for bids commissioners to incur any
debt in excess of $4,000 without first
securing the approval of a majority OF
the electors, the commissioners had no
constitutional right to borrow the $780,
600, and that the method employed OF
issuing warrants in sums OF $4,000 or
less was clear evasion of the consti-
tuition, wholly Illegal and void. The
tudgmen ent of the district court Is af-
firmed Opinion by Justice Hunt.
Hoffman VS.. the county commission
ers. decided as the foregoing.
Rebecca Emerson, appellant. VS.. FL |
dorado Ditch company. respondent Re- |
becca Emerson sued the defendant for /
damages done to her hay crop by the /
overflow of the defendants ditch, but |
lost the suit. The judgment OF the dis
trict court. in favor of the defendants.
Is reversed and judgment and order en-
tered in behalf of the plaintiff. Opinion
by the court.
Nathaniel c. Ray and Frank NJ.
Leonard, appellants. VS.. John r. Cowan
and James A. Talbot. respondents; from
Silver Bow county. Ray and Leoard
brought suit against Cowan and Tai
oott to recover so 900 claimed by them
Tor commissions in effecting a sale of
stock owned by the defendants in the
Silver Bow Hydraulic Mining company
10 certain outside capitalists. The Jury |
n the district court found for the plain
-ins, but a new trial was Pranted An
appeal to the supreme court was taken
lpon the ground of insufficiency of evil
ience. Chief Justice Pemberton re-
liews the evidence and SAYS that
through substantial conflict and by
he repealed decisions of the supreme
.ourt of such cases the order of the
district court would not be disturbed.
rhe order is affirmed.
Sarah c. Gassert. appellant VS.. John
Soyes ct al, respondent Chief Justice
decides that where a prior
of water changes the use
o which IL was put and for which II is
contemplated at the time of the an
ropriation so that junior appropriations
ying below on the same stream from
Which the first appropristor took his
vater would be deprived of the use of
Fater, such appropriation is Illegal and
annot deprive the later appropriations
rom their rights. IL is decided that the
rst appropriation may divert the water
ut Cannot do so as to interfere with the
ights of junior appropriators acquired
efore such diversion. The district
ourt having instructed that the first
could divert the place and Z
Sc of the water. without regard to the I
lnlor appropriations. the instruction is I
ED 70 be incorrect and requires a re-
ersal of the case.
Lizzie McShane ct al Va Q
ohm Ekekleetal; from Meagher. v
his was an adverse claim suit over :
inning property in Neihart The dis e
-ict court instructed the jury in erfect a
rat valid location OF mining claims
lust be such a discovery as that
hich practical miner would feel JUS
ned In expecting 10 ind paying ore n
the particular seam upon which he I
ade his discovery. The supreme court n
olds such instruction is erroneous in Z,
vo respects-flrst. in limiting the ex- &
sctation of finding paying ore to prac- Il
cal miners as contra istinguished s
ON others. and I'm declaring that ex- b
ectation 10 md mineral in paying c.
is confined 10 the particular n
am upon which the discovery is II