The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-24
HOW BORDONI DID IT
The Cigar and Liquor Business THAI
Was Attached.
GALLlCK BRINGS THE SUIT
Fraud Is Alleged-A Woman's Pc
tition for sole leadership Pa
pers-kelly Persists in Plead
ing Guilty of Larceny.

The trial OF the case OF +. Gallick
! against Constable T. J. Bordeaux was
proceeded with before a jury in Judge
Speer's court yesterday morning and
was not concluded at the hour of ad-
Journment. The defendant was the
| first witness and testified that on May
10. 1895, that being the date on which
he made the levy of an execution in
the case of Cooney against Bordoni
Bordoni was in possession of the hq-
uors and cigars which are claimed by
Gallick. Bordeaux also said that when
he undertook to levy on the property
Bordoni at first stated that the prop
erty belonged to Gallick, but later on
said that he transferred the stock to
Gallick for the purpose of defeating
his creditors and that the stock was
his own. Counsel for the plaintiff OBJ
Jected to any admissions made by Bor-
doni unless Gallick was present and
claimed that such admission in no wise
affected Gallick. Thee ouut overruled
the objection and allowed the testi-
mony to be introduced. Bordeaux then
said that when he took possession of
the stock Bordoni admitted that he
was the real owner of the property and
that the sale to Gallick was made for
the purpose Of defrauding his credi-
tors; also that the sign posted in the
store which "E. Gallick, proprietor"
was posted for protection only and for
the purpose of standing off Bordoni's
creditors. This was confirmed by Ollie
Humphreys, who was in charge as Gus
todian.
Sam DelGrosso, a witness on behalf
OF the defendant, said that at the time
OF the transfer by Bordoni to Gallick,
he was an einploye of Bordoni and that
at the time the sale was made he en-
tered into conversation with Gallick
and that he was then informed by the
plaintiff THAT he would not be RESPONSE
bic for his wages and that he must
look to Bordoni for his money. Ike
Heilbronner. who Is credit man for
Louis S. Cohn, said that on the morning
of the day on which Bordeaux LEVIED
on the property that he made a sale
OF about 500 cigars to Bordoni and at
the time Bordoni was in possession of
the saloon and claimed to be the owner;
that he asked Bordoni for the mean
ing of the sign posted in the rear of the
store and the reply was that IL was
out up there as a matter of form and
In order to prevent his numerous cred
itors from troubling him. Frank III.
Cooney who is the real defendant,
then took the stand and testified as to
admissions made to him by Bordoni.
but the major part OF the conversation
having taken place after the place was
attached his testimony in that particu-
lar was ruled out.
After the introduction of some testi-
mony in .rebuttal the case was argued
70 the jury. The court did not instruct
the jury, but deferred doing so until
morning. The main contention by the
defendant is that the sale by Bordoni
70 Gallick is under the statute OF
frauds, In view of the fact that the al
ieged sale was not accompanied by an
immediate delivery Of possession and
Followed by continued change of pos
session. John w. Cotter represented
the plaintiff and John Lindsay the de-
PENDANT