The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-04-20
COURT In BOULDER
A Big Batch of jefferson County Bust
ness Disposed Of
THE STATE AGAINST BOvEE
Selecting the Jury to Try the slayer
of McDaniels-A New Question
of Law Raised In the Pend
ing Mining suit.

Special Correspondence OF the Standard.
Boulder. April lin the case of d.
w. Grinneli VS.. Joseph Davis the de-
PENDANTS motion for a new trial was
| overruled
The case Of the Jubilee Placer COM
pany VS.. Catherine Hossfeld came on
TO be heard on the plaintiffs motion
Tor new trial and the same was by
the court overruled.
The plaintiffs motion for a new trial
| In the case of the Basin Mining q Con-
centrating company VS.. Wallace McC.
White was everruled. This case in
volved new question of law, or at
least one new to the courts of Mon
tana- The plaintiff being the owner of
the Hope mining claim at Basin made
| application for a patent to the claim
and in making a survey of the claim
/ left out a fraction about 400 feet by
200 feet They posted notices on the
claim according to the survey Mr.
/ White in examining the records ascer-
J tanned that this small fraction was
left out and apparently not claimed by
any one, and located IL, making a good
discovery and valid location. There
upon the Basin Mining and Concen-
trating company made application for
a resurvey of their claim to the United
States land Office at Washington, CIV
ing as the reason that the United
States deputy mineral surveyor who
made their survey had left out the
fraction by a mistake, which applica-
ton was granted. In the meantime
Mr.. White proceeded to expend large
sums of money in the development of
the fraction, and without notice of the
application for the re-survey or of the
fact that the plaintiff claimed the
ground as part of the Hope lode, and
in good faith made an application for
patent therefor. Within 60 days from
the first day of the publication OF his !
notice of intention to apply for pat
ent the plaintiff fled its adverse claim |
In the land office and within 80 days |
thereafter commenced an action in the |
district court of this county to deter |
mine its adverse claim.
The trial was before a jury and re- |
suited in a victory for the defendant. |
The plaintiff moved for new trial |
with the above result. The case will /
now be appealed to the supreme court. |
In the case of Line Moreen VS.. Evan /
Rurtman the court adopted the find 4
ings OF the jury in favor of the defend
ant and made additional findings and |
ordered judgment for the defendant in
accordance herewith. declaring him to
be the owner of and entitled to the
possession Of the land and premises in
controversy.
The case of Samuel Wade VS.. John
w. Eastridge, which was tried before
the Judge-a jury being expressly
waived. resulted in a judgment in ia
vor of the defendant for 500. The de-
cision awards the plaintiff the imme-
date possession of the ranch now &C.
cupied by the defendant near White
hall. upon payment into court of that
sum. orders the mortgage to the
plaintiff by defendant on the ranch to
be Cancelled, and further orders the
plaintiff to deliver the notes secured by
the mortgage to the defendant. and
awards all the Improvements placed
upon the ranch to the plaintiff.
The case of the New Era Mining
company VS.. Charles Whitcomb ct al
came on to be heard on the defend
ants motion to dissolve the injunction
heretofore issued in the case, and after
hearing the evidence offered, the court
overruled the motion II the plaintiff
would execute and file a good and SUM-
cient bond in the sum of $1,000 before
April 20.
In the case OF the A. NJ. Hotter Hard
ware company VS.. the Basin and Bay
State Mining company ct al, the
plaintiff was granted leave to amend
he complaint and summons by inter-
ineation and the same was done in the
,ase of the Kenyon-connell CONNER
,ial company ct al. In the case of the
New Era Mining company VS.. Charles
Frank Longmaid was
granted leave to file his complaint in
Frank Loiselle and j. p. Finnerty =
we're excused from further attendance
IS jurors at this term, and James Rol- 7
ms, William Wolter. William Fiison. &
. j. Hollenbeck, II. Il. Thompson, h
Sharles Lepler. NJ. Goldberg. w ST. p
mons. George Herbert, Felix Porter. c. !
Y. Dodge, J. NJ. Wallace, Ed Raymond.
;. +. Lowry and c. T.. Worden were, p
y the court, declared to be members q
( the regular panel OF trial jurors for d
he present term OF this court. b
j. II. Murphy withdrew as attorney n
or the defendant in the case of the II
tate vs.. George Bassette. Fl
In the case Of the state VS.. William Ct
'rederickson a trial by jury was had o
nd the punishment was fixed in the IL
erdiot at one year In the penitentiary
The case of the state VS.. Bovee is on u
rial to-day The entire forenoon was IN
AIKEN up in the selection OF jury The a.
rosecution is conducted by w. L. Hay, Of
ounty attorney. and the defendant Is p
apresented by Cowan & Parker. The II
-ial VIII most likely be concluded to- Dl
borrow. The only living witness to 81
ne killing of McDaniels. for which the p'
efendanf is on trial. is his wife. Myr-
e Bovee, and her testimony will most u
artainly be excluded under the statute W
-hich states that the wife shall nor ee
I've evidence in a criminal case against
CT husband. There are a number OF &C
Illnesses subpoenaed by the state. but A
hat they will testify can only be con- IN
ctured- There Is consider able SYM OF
athy here In favor OF the defendant. %
Justice Sweet fined Ben Gordon $40 OF
n assaulting Mrs. Nelson. The par NJ
es live in Jefferson City and have CO
een airing their difficulties in the JUS vi
&C court for some time. IL Is only a Ia
W days since Gordon had Nelson ar m
Sted for assault and battery. TO -
hlc1 charge fbe Is.-tsy. a. -.,,;',., or
EOZEMAA'5 HEALTH. W
10
II P"'' 10 tue my 'ouneii-hany New H
4 nnics H. iowa. n