Great Falls weekly tribune., 1896-12-11

"ilt vi I4aJ4amu5 came to an end Tues
Day 60 far as the introduction Of eyi-
dence was concerned. A decision by the
court is looked for in the next 10 days.
Iha case has not been Of 60 great in
terest to the public and Interpretations as
/, was thought it would be, from the fact
that large portion Of the time of tho
court was taken up in tho discussion Of
legal points Of an extremely technical
character, and many OF them were points
that did not touch the merits of
the case at all, So far US laymaa
could see. For instance, long
legal battle eusued over the
question as to whether the hydrant
rentals were duo tic water company or
the trustee Of the bondholders. Another
was long contest over the controversy
as to whether writ Of lnGndamua was
the proper remedy in The case Again
Inc legal battle Wa5 Waged over the non
compliance Of the water company with
section 1906 Uf tn civil code providing
for affidavit 10 claims for rentals. There
wero other technical questions Of SINH
lar character,
As q lawyers battle the proceedings
were doubtless very much enjoyed by
the legal fraternity, gooJ!y number Of
the Great Fails bar bong present most
Of tho tim, They were disappointed in
mot hearing Mr., Day Of lie coa, The at
toruey whou the cIty council employed
AZ an expense Of $1,000 to conduct the
case, bpl who was detained IN Helena on
another case OWING II The illness of his
partner. 1t Is fair to Gay, however, that
it was the general impression that the
city lost nothing in this respect
Us 4. J. Shores donated his services
to the city, and conducted the fight with
eminent ability and great zeal. This
latter brought him into several breezy
episodes that lightened The tedious char
AGter Of the proceedings. Several at
tempts to deviate from the issues
brought out ecorching robukes from
Lawyer Neazey, who, with fine command
of language, reminded Mr.. Shores of his
unusual methods 10 the conduct OF the
case, Mr.. Pigott, toward the last of the
trial, also took turn at the city'5 coun-
sci, vigorously objecting to his method
of questioning Il. E. Collins as to his
memory, declaring that on this pretext
he was unfairly trying to got in the rec,
ord matters previously ruled out by the
court.
The positions occupied by the city,
which they offered to prove, were:
First--That mandamus proceedings
were not the proper procedure, but that
the company's remedy was suit at law.
Second-That there was no obligation
to pay, because the original contract
WIS procured by fraud, IN that Paris
Gibson entered into au agreement with
Ira Myers, L, f. Collins and f G.
Maclay. prior to the granting of the con-
tract, whereby he was to be benefited by
the granting Of the contract, and that
the present owners had guilty knowl.
edge of the facte.
Third-That there was DO obligation
to pay, because the city had never re-
ceived the goods charged for, viz, the
maintenance Of 25l hydrante.
Fourth--That there was no obligation
to pay, because the company failed to
perform one of the conditions of the con-
tract in furnishing a plentiful supply Of
pure and wholesome water To the Citi
Zcns
IJfth--TNat there was no obligation
TO pay, because the contract was unrea-
sonable and beyond the power Of the
council to grant,
Sixth--That there was no obligation
to pay because there was not sufficient
10 the water fund or levied, and
the city WAS beyond its legal limit of in
dcbtedness. This was the original aIle-
gation at the beginning OF the contro-
vorsy and the only One apparent at that
time. These we're the main points
argued. Ia most Of thcm the court
ruled out evidence on objections made
on legal grounds The charge, however,
that Paris Gibson. viii e acting as mayor
of the city at the time the original n
tract was granted, had an interest in
the company, was gone into fully, and
llIb cNllpLCc EllU"cu tlldl LlB lUElDuh-
tions and whispers which for several
years have been circulated had not Il leg
to stand on and dld not deserve place
on tho records Of the court.
In the present trial Mr.. Myers denied
that Mr.. Gibson had any interest at the
time of the passage Of the ordinance, but |,
said he subscribed for five shares shortly
whom the general public were
to eu uDsclibe. +, G. Maclay tes
tilted most positively and emphatlcalIy |
that at the time the water company re |
ceived It's franchise there was no sugges-
tion or understanding or expectation on
his part or his associates that Mr.. Glib
son was to share or profit in any way by
the contract and that he had no interest
of a pecuniary nature in the company at
the time the franchise and contract was
granted. Y, f. Collins testimony fully
confirmed .he statements OF the others
Mr.. Gibson viDdlCat!On was con-
pete, and ought 10 put at rest forever
ui5reputt.blo runOc5 ana ibucJDuoca ot
this character, .relectins upon the iirst
MAYER of Great Fails ~ other respected
,,itl.,,,. ~ iHis Dlpr, who were urOni-