The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-06-22
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Actions of Considerable Import
ance Decided by That Body.
A CASE FROM DEER LODGE
Judge Brantly's Decision in the Ryan
Habeas Corpus Case Sustained. SO
the Prisoner Must Serve Out
HIS Sentence.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena. June 2l.-Judge Brantly's de-
cision To the effect that justices " the
peace have concurrent Jurisdiction with
police magistrates was sustained by
the supreme court. and the result Is
that James Ryan. convicted In a JUS
tees court In Anaconda for vagracy.
viii be compelled to serve out his
term. Ryan applied 10 Judge Brantly
Of the Deer Lodge district court for a
writ OF habeas corpus but IL was re-
fused. He appealed 10 the supreme
court which now sustains the district
court. Counsel for Petitioner Ryan
commended that section 3i56 OF the po-
litical code of 1895. which gave exclus-
i've Jurisdiction of misdemeanors to po-
lice magistrate within the confines
of a city governed. while the state held
that by house bill 2gi, passed by the
legislative assembly Of 1895. amending
section 1856 and giving Concurrent jur-
tsdiciion Is such matters to justices of
the peace, must rule Justice Buck
wrote the opinion.
Four other actions. two of them OF
considerable Importance, was decided.
They are: Fred Whiteside ys. school
district M. Of Flathcad county.
Plaintiff Whiteside brought action to
enforce IA mechanics lien against
school district No. ) OF Flathead county
Tor building material furnished for the
erection of a school building. The low
er court found for the defendant school
district The supreme court In an
opinion by Justice Hunt, afrms the
Judgment of the district court and
holds that rnder the statute OF this
state II was not intended to give a me
chanic, who is a sub-contractor. "a lien
Tor wo"e dove ar materials furnished
In the construction OF a public school
house and that by the omission ~ the
express right to u lien upon such a
building or property II II shown that
II was not intended tn he included with
In the provisions OF the lien law for
reasons of public policy.
A. W. Miles vs.. A. +, Coutts. Frank
Henry ct al, This was an action to
foreclose a mechanics lien. had against
the house Of Judge Henry In Living
ston. Plaintiff furnished glass for a
dwelling house constructed by Coutts
/ In the contract entered into between
Henry and the-sst-susl contractor the
! following clause was embodied: said
contractor agrees to pay for all labor
and material. and allow no liens 10 he
filed ON said building and the said
proprietor reserves the right to pay on
| and discharge any liens that may he
filed. out OF sums due said contractor,
as herein above provided" The ques-
! tions decided by the court on this ap-
peal were whether or not the above
clause in the contract was 81 explicit
ms To admit Of but one construction.
namely. to forbid the claiming Of any
lien by any person furnishing labor and
material. and second. whether or not
"A contractor and the owner OF n build
ing can by reason OF such a clause In
the contract as given above deprive all
other persons who furnish labor and
material OF their right tn claim a lien
without their consent. Chief Justice
Pemberton says that the clause was
not absolutely explicit and holds that
whether explicit or not. the owner of
! the building and contractor cannot en-
ter into an agreement tn deprive any
| sub-contractor or person OF his statu-
tory rights under the lien law. Judg-
msnt is reversed.
George Welcome vs. Ed Howell
Plaintiff Welcome brought action he
fore n justice of the peace. under the
statute OF forcible detainer Judgment
was there rendered Cor the defendant
Plaintiff then appealed To the district
court OF Park county where he oh
tanned judgment. Defendant attempts
to appeal from this Judgment to the
supreme court The appeal Is dis
missed. as IL was not taken within ths
statutory time. opinion by Justic.
Hunt.
James a. Murray vs. II. ;. Clark Il
al. ON the authority In the case 0i
Murray vs.. Congdon. decided by ths
court ON April u. this ease Is reversed
and remanded to the district court oi
Silver Bow county to make the same
orders as those given In the Murray
VS.. COngdon case.