Great Falls weekly tribune., 1896-02-14
GREAT FALLS WEEKLY

, 1896.
of some S5OO,OOO; bills receivable, $780,
600; large stock on hand, and, best of
all, 100000 tons more ore in sight than
last year, Notwithstanding the increased
production.
In the suit of Lizzie Hamilton vs., the
Great Falls Street Railway Co.. an action
for damages for personal injuries, in
which plaintiff recovered judgment in
the district court for Cascade county for
$4,000, which the supreme court re-
duced to ST 800, which plaintiff accepted,
the supreme court has denied defend
ants motion for rehearing on the ap-
peal.
William E. Kern yesterday instituted
suit 10 the district court against Martha
| II, Plasaman, executrix of the estate of
Herbert p. Roife, deceased, to recover
$50, alleged to be due plaintiff for
surveying done for Judge Rofe from
Aug. l. 1889, to Aug. J., 1890, with in
terest since the latter date and attorneys
fees, Douglas Martin is plaintiffs at
torney
| Io NOSI VI calling IOl lllt pun VI
Cascade county last month was only
at the poor house, including salary of
steward, clothing and food, as we'll as
all the outdoor relief. There are about
20 inmates at the poor house. This is
rather remarkable record for January
and goes to show that times are not as
hard this year as usual in Great Falls.
Last year the cost of keepine the poor
in January was about $500, and the
year before it amounted to a still larger
sum.
Judge DuBose left yesterday morning
for Fort Benton, to convene the Febru
ary term of the district court of the
Tenth Judicial district, for Choteau
county. The jury is to attend next
Monday. There are II criminal cases,
with Il persoLs Az defendants, and "a
civil cases on the calendar. The cases
to which citizens of Cascade county are
parties are: Amelia r. Kendall We. B. F..
O'Neal, the Northwestern National Bank
= of Great Falls ys. Francis S. Street; T..
, VI. Everett vs. the Great Falls and Harlem
. Land e. Irrigating Co.
= Roland Fisher was tried before Justice
t Burleigh yesterday on a charge of re-
moving mortgaged property from the
: place in which it was situate at the time
r of the execution of the mortgage. The
. evidence showed that Fisher removed
the property from Sand Coulee, to d
. point about Is miles distant, but within
Cascade county; and, as clause in the
mortgage forbid the removal of the prop
y erty from Cascade county, Justice Bur
, leigh held that the clause implied con
+ sent to its removal to any point within
8 the county, and dismissed the case.
l. In the district court yesterday, the
|, questions Of law in the suit of II. b
t Palmer of Helena against the city o1
b Graat Falls ct al, an action TO cOmpt
a defendants to pay plaintiff $1,000 due te
Henry Nogel, contractor for paving Cen
: tral avenue, and alleged to have beer
a assigned to plaintiff. were argued, Lar
! gent g. Huntoon appearing for plaintit
A. and Sam Stephenson, city attorney, ane
e j. B. Leslie for defendants. 1t Will b'
a =. remembered that jury, few week'
~ ago, returned 10 findings of fact and nov
4 Judge Benton is to apply the law to th'
;, facts. The case was taken under advise
! ment.
e, 1t is understood that the suit of Viii
ar mer Atkinson ct al. vs. Henry Voge e
g. al. will not be appealed to the suprem
Of court. This is an action to enjoin de
Of PENDANTS from paving Central avenue
le which was decided in favor O
of defendants in the district cour
1e after the paving had been completed
T. Notice Of appeal was given Nov. q
e. 1895: three days later an appeal bone
d, was fled, and four days later the tran
n. script was certified. The appeal has no
"a been perfected and it is understood that
"a. even if Nogel's contract with the city G
th Great Falls were declared void, the cit
" could then legally levy a special assess
e. mcnt to pay for the special improve
mcnt already completed, and hence
would be useless to appeal the case.
r. In the suit Of Charles G. Criswell V
re the Montana Central Railway Co, d
f. action for damages for personal injurie
I'd IN which plaintiff recovered, in the dl
"a trict court for Cascade county judgmet
,ln for $1,000, which was affirmed by tt
a supreme court, the latter court hi
ri granted rehearing on a certain poit
~ of law, not fully argued at the first hea
a. ing. This is the case in which tt
an supreme court affirmed the constitution
nf ahty Of the law of the state which re-
nd 9era employers liable for damages cause
to an emp)oye by an act of felloy
servant, and it is upon this point th
A. j Shores, de!enGauts attorney, d
sirea a rehearng, as the decision was o
noXious to the corpo ations doing bus
~ ness in the state which he represents.