The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-05-18
-FOUR CASES SETTLED
The Judgment Against Ticket Broker
Bernheim Affirmed.
GREAT FALLS WATER CASE
Order to Grant Peremptory Writ
Prayed for-Dr. Series Of Ana.
conda and the Medical Board
Matters Set for Hearing.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena. May 1.-THE supreme court
returned four opinions to-day, three of
which are OF unusual Importance. The
Judgment against ]. Bernheim, a ticket
broker, involving the anti-scaipers law,
Is affirmed. The Judgment on the ap-
PEAL OF DIR. J. T.. Serres OF Anaconda
from the decision OF the state board of
medical examiners IL reversed. as Is the
order granting a new trial to the city
of Great Falls In the suit brought
against II by the Great Falls Water
Works company. The following actions
were taken:
The state OF Montana ex rel. the
Great Falls Water Works VS.. mayor
and city council OF the city Of Great
Falls and the city OF Great Falls. This
was an appeal from the action OF the
district court, Judge DuBose presiding.
OF Cascade county in granting a new
trial TO the defendant city OF Great
Falls In a mandamus proceeding insti-
tuted by the Great Falls Water Works
against the city Of Great Falls, COM
manding said city to issue its warrant
In payment OF hydrant rentals. The
mandamus had been issued by Judge
Benton. great many reasons are as
signed by the city why its action In re-
fusing to pay the water rentals should
stand. They are disposed OF In an clab-
orate opinion by Justice Buck. who
says: "Winnowing the grain Of this
controversy. distinguishing the sub
stance from the shadows of the law In
Voked, the vital issues are less numer-
GUS than the many questions elabor-
ated, discussed In brief and argument
seemed to indicate. IL In apparent from
the records that In the refusal OF the
city council OF Great Falls to allow the
REALTORS claim for hydrant rentals, the
actual motive was to repudiate the wa
Ter contract because IL had grown bur-
densome through changed financial
conditions. II In also manifest that the
district judge who granted the motion
Tor new trial acted solely on the the
ory that the REALTORS remedy for Its al
legged wrong was not mandamus. While
IL IL true as general proposition that
q correct decision or ruling will not be
disturbed on appeal, even II the reason
announced for the same is erroneous.
nevertheless an appellate court is under
no compulsion to grope In speculation
for good reason. Therefore. In deter
mination OF an appeal. a reason ex-
piicitly given for the ruling or decision
by an Inferior tribunal is always en-
titled to more consideration than were
possibly good reasons subsequently
conceived and urged. II false reason
,s sNen ,he sounu one tor supporting
49, ouu os eSay apparent ana read
y suppneu. were II otherwise, inge-
,, n.y ~ mere iule argument would re-
ss ' anu uou". wou'a ue encouraged Tor
Wy VI n'.re uoupt. Inc order
s.e""ns NV uiai reversed ahd the
.ase rrmauueu WIN INSTRUCTIONS 10
a"' '"e Pe'e"'p'ory VIII as prayed
'"u,
soase ou Mon'ana tx reL y. y; serres
~ '"e us,rc' COURT OF the rlrst Ju-
% "s'rct III anu ior LEWIS ana
s'aIhe county. InIs IN an appication
.or VIII o. mahosmus 70 conpei DIS
uict cour. NO ! OF Lewis ana Clarke
sounS 10 nea. ,ne appeal OF D. r. serres
Iron tne action OF the STATE board OF
.as 'ne.hsaI e.ahnIne.s IN refusing Nun
ceI.'nca.e 10 practlce nedicine ana sur
gerry IN tne state OF Montana. Relator
serres underwent an examination as To
nus n,hess 10 pracuce' tne BOARD round
MN 'hconpe,ent ana refused nim "
eense. re thereupon Appealed 10 the
uis'ric' court tne Judge thereot refused
10 entertain tne appeal h"iding tnat
aPpea's iron actions ot the n"aru ot
menIcai examiners would only ne IN
eases wnete certincate had neen re-
iuseo tor uhproiessiohai nisnonoranie
OF immoral conduct; ana not from the
re.usaI OF tne poaro 10 issue certlh-
cs'e On tne srounu %, tne ,hcoihpe,ehcy
VI ,ne appncant' Nniet Justice REM
ver,oh wrote tne opinion ana Justice
nun, concurs, Justice BUCK aissents.
s,a.e OF Montaha vs. j. bernneim.
bernheiih was convicted IN the district
court OF Lewis anu clarke county on
an information nied against MIN IN
Ap,n. 1850, IN vio'ation OF the so,cailed
scaIpers aw ne Appealed 10 the su-
preme court from the judgment OF con-
vlctoh. Appehaht assaiied the valdl-
" OF ,hat law on Two GROUNDS, nrst.
because tue law was one TOT raising
revenue ana tnat theretore the o,il
wn'cn aIterwa.us became law should
nave originated IN tne mouse instead or
IN tne senate. anu, secohu. because tne
conso,utioha, P,ovis'on requiring the
suoyec, OIL the o,ii 70 De clearly ex.
pressed IN tne tit'e nad oeen violated
INSOFAR as the puhisninent prescribed
IN saId piii Tor the VOCATION OF the pro-
VISIONS thersih was not reIerred 10 IN
the tue. Inc hrst contention o. the
sppe,laht Is disposea OF oy sus.lce hunt
ior the court IN noiuins that TINS pro-
VISION IN the constitution ln RELATION 70
All revenue laws originating IN the
mouse was borrowed from the eonstitu.