The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-01-16
MRS. GODDARD LOSES
Little Probability Of Her Realizing
Anything on Her $1,000 Judgment.
THE COURTS OPINION OF 1T
Attorney Shelton Neglected to File
the Complaint In interview
ton Within the Time AL
lowed by Law.

Judge Mediation yesterday morning
heard the motions on the petition Of
Mrs. Sophia Goddard to intervene In
the big attachment suit of w. A. Clark
& Brother against the Kenyon Connell
Commercial company, and decided the
matter against Mrs. Goddard's attor-
ney, ]. A. Shelton, who neglected to file
the complaint in intervention within
the time allowed by law. and now there
ts a greater probability than ever that
Mrs. Goddard will fail to realize amy
ching on her 5000 judgment against
the Kenyon Council company.
The matter came up yesterday morn
Ding on a motion of Attorney f. e. Cor
'bett to strike from the files the COM
pladnt in Intervention filed after a de-
fault had been entered, and also on a
motion of Mr.. Shelton to set aside the
default and permit his complaint to
remain on file and have precedence
over the default Mr.. Corbett cited a
rule of the supreme count that COM
plants in intervention could not be
filed after the time for answering had
expired. Mr.. Shelton, replying, said
the default had not actually been en-
tered, as only request for 1t had been
made when he filed his complaint, and
explained that the had filed the wrong
complaint the day previous, thinking IL
was the complaint i'm the Clark case.
He contended the count had discretion
in the matter and could permit the
right complaint to be filed, even after
default had been entered, on the ground
of excusable neglect and inadvertence.
Mr.. Codbett said the neglect or ignOr-
ance of an attorney was not an excuse
dor setting aside a default, and there
was nothing eXcuSable in the fact that
the attorney had the complaint in his
possession for 20 days. and might have
hled II at any time during that period.
In passing on the matter, the Judge
said The would take occasion to repeat
that the court could not be responsible
for the acts of attorneys which resulted
IN a mistake or the improper conduct
OF their business. The court looked
with disfaVor upon applications to set
aside defaults based ON the So-called
mistakes or tnadvertence of attorneys,
and the application would only be con-
sidered faVora.bly where Ii appeared
that 1t was manifestly an excusable
neglect; otherwise the court could not
interfere ITO correct the mistakes of at
torneys At the time the court passed
on the question of the third party TO
intervene, DIT was announced that while
the statute gave that right, the court
could recognize II i'm cases where the
claims of the intervenor were borne out
by the facts and that the intervenor
should be prosecuted with proper dill
lay to the other PARTIES. The court said
Vt must take the case as presented and
that was THAT the default had been en-
tered before the complaint I'm interven-
tdon had been filed. The only question
to be considered, therefore. was the mo-
tion to set aside the default, which
would have to be answered in the neg
0tive. The court could not view the
actions of the party claiming that ne
undertook to file the complaint before
the expiration of ahe time for answer
ing, as any suggestion of diligence In
the matter.
On the other hand, the court would
rather suspect f31at II counsel had had
a desire TO prosecute the case in inter-
vention, he would have filed the COM
platnt Immediately after leave had been
granted by the court, which would have
9ndioaited diligence in the prosecution of
the case. The facts, said the court
were sufficiently weighty and couclus
i've to justify the court In refusing the
motion TO set aside the default and sus-
tain the motion to strike from the files
the complaint In intervention, which
was ordered.
Mr.. Shelton took am exception tn .he
COURTS ruling. and then MIR. Corbett Sc
cured the entry of a default Judgment
against the Kenyon-Connell cornpanv
and IN favor of w. A Clark &, Ia,.D