The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-21
FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
Justice KirkwoOd of Meaderville Cited
to Appear in Court
DIR. MURRAY VS.. H. P. REFS
He Secures a Verdict for S2IO-
Gallick's Damage Suit Against
Eordeaux-Ma alters Set for
Hearing To-Day.
DR.. MURRAY VS.. H. P. REFS

Hearing To-Day.
Another justice of the peace has
| been cited ITO appear in court with his
records for the purpose of having his
accounts reviewed. A petition for
that purpose was filed in the district
| court yesterday by Attorney Dan
Yancey, representing Fred and Maggie
Kramer. The petition recites that the
Kramers were made defendants in an
action commenced by Katherine King
in w. f. Kir'kwood's court in Meader-
vile. The case was tried before a
jury and a verdict given in favor of
the defendants and a judgment was
entered. w. c. Worthington. appear
ing as attorney for Mrs. King. moved
to set aside and vacate the judgment.
Mr.. Yancey argued that a justice of
the peace had no jurisdiction to reopen
a case or vacate "a judgment, the rem
edy being to appeal. Justice Kirkwood
knew BETTER and refused ITO hear argu-
| ment on the question of Jurisdiction.
He set aside the verdict and judgment
and Mr.. Yancey appeals to Judge Nc
Hatton for a writ of review.
The suit of DIR. T. ]. Murray against
Henry p. Refs, administrator of the
estate of Sarah McGarry, deceased,
was called. DR.. Murray sued for $3.50 as
a balance claimed to be due for hos
pital treatment given Mrs. McGarry
just before she died and for several
operations. DR.. Murray had presented
the claim to the administrator but only
Sl60 was allowed on it. as many of the
charges We're disputed and Others 1t
was contended, were not reasonable.
An interesting point raised during the
trial was on an objection by Attorney
Leehey to the testimony of DIR. Murray
on the ground that under the provis-
ions of subdivision 4, section 1853 of the
political code the doctor was disquali-
fed from testifying. The provision
reads as follows:
"A licensed physician or surgeon can
not, without the consent of his patient,
be examined in a civil action as to any
information acquired in attending the
patient. which was necessary Ito enable
him to prescribe or act for the pa
tent"
James w. Forbis, who represented
DIR. Murray, argued that the law
quoted did not contemplate actions be-
tween parties and that, as Mr.. Refs
was the representative of Mrs. Nc
Garry, the doctor was not disqualified
Judge Mediation took the same view of
ii and overruled the objection, but held
that the objection was good as to DR..
Leavitt, witness who had also at
tended Mrs. McGarry. The jury in the
case gave DR.. Murray a verdict for
s210.
In Judge Speer's court the case of
Z. Gallick against Constable T. ]. Bor-
deaux was tried before jury, but was
not concluded when court adjourned
for the day. Gallick claimed ne owned
saloon in East Park street which was
at ached and taken possession OF by the
constable on an attachment against F.
A. Borden. Gallick claimed he bought
the stock from Borden, but the consta-
bic says the sale was not made in good
faith. Gallick wants $500 as the value
OF the stock and $1,000 damages. In the
case of Adam +. Brown, assignee of
Miller. Chapman & Co., against w. ].
Palmer, proofs were taken from the
plaintiff yesterday and judgment en-
tered for 1886 S..
The Mutual Collection company yes
terday sued John Kropfganz for $500
due on two notes and for 500 attor-
neys' fees. Mattison & Naughten are
the company's attorneys
BY stipulation judgment was entered
yesterday for the defendant in the case
of II. l.. Frank against George A. Cob
ban.
When the short stay of proceedings
in the Old Glory case expired yester-
day morning neither the plaintiff, Rob
ert c. Burton. nor hts attorneys put
I'm an appearance. and the Judgment for
possession OF the property in contro-
versy was signed in favor of Louis Des
Rivieres and Joseph Hamelin' and the
Injunction. which has been in force
since last December. was dissolved.
The costs. amounting to $6167O, were
taxed up against the plaintiff.
III. Strasberger yesterday, commenced
suit against May Malloy for 1882 so
due on notes. An attachment was is
sued
The following matters are set for
hearing in the two departments of
court to-day:
Department I.-Estate of Paul Davis,
return OF sale of personal property: es-
tate of Frank Proulx, petition for pro-
bate of WILL estate of NJ. McNamee, CT
tation TO Mantle & Warren; estate OF
T. II. Carbey, citation to A. j. Davis;
estate Of John Hendrew. citation TO
York & Shovel: w c. Harding vs.. l..
T. Harding, plaintiffs proofs; j. ].
York vs.. Smith Piano company, motion
for new trial; Thomas Ford VS.. Saville
* LuNton. motion TO dismiss appeal:
w. +. Cobban et al VS.. w II. Burton
81 al, demurrer; r. w Bell VS. NJ. X.
Bell plaintiffs proofs; Il. s. Hughes
vs.. A. j. Davidson & Co, motion for
new trial; Silas +. King VS.. Montana
ore Purchasing company, motion: r.
d. Baxter VS.. Kate NJ. Hamilton et al.