The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-12-24
JEWELL WAS RELEASED
On Habeas Corpus Proceedings
Before Judge Clancy.
TRIAL WAS IRREGULAR
Officer Sheehey Makes His Answer in
the Damage Suit Brought Against
Him by Prudehomme-Asked
to Divide Bray's Money.

Thomas Jewell who some time ago
was sentenced to the county jail for %
days for vagrancy by Justice of the
Peace Trap, was released yesterday
afternoon by Judge Clancy on habeas
corpus proceedings because the pro-
ceedings in the justice court were If
regular John Bloor who represented
Jewell presented the facts to the court
which showed that Jewell had been
tried without having been informed of
his right to have an attorney and was
Immediately sentenced without the le
gal time for passing sentence having
been waived. 1t was also stated that
no judgment had ever been entered and
there was no entry on the Justices
docket of the case This statement was
born out by Justice Trap himself, who
was put on the witness stand and tes-
titled that he was so busy that he had
not written up his docket in week al
though the law says a Judgment must
be recorded within two days. Upon
these facts Judge Clancy ordered Jewell
to be discharged from custody.
I, Police officer Daniel D. Sheehey yes
terday made an answer to the damage
suit brought against him by Peter
Prudehomme. The latter claimed that
Sheehey dubbed him over the head
without cause and injured him SO that
he was laid up for several weeks for
which he demanded $1,000. Sheehey
denies he struck Prudehomme with a
policeman's club or that he inflicted
serious injury which left a permanent
scar and injured Prudehomme's health.
Sheehey alleges that he was at the
time complained of a regular police
man and was on duty at the Montana
Union depot in South Butte in pursu-
ance of instructions from his superiors
a,,I IT, No f,,1G ofI hi 1,,fia
peace officer. While so engaged, Prude-
homme accosted a lady. whose name
the officer did not know and assaulted
her and threatened her with violence.
To prevent it and in attempting to pre-
vent the plaintiff from assaulting and
annoying and injuring the lady, the de-
PENDANT warned him to desist. which
warning the plaintiff did not heed. but
attempted to force the lady by physical
| force into his hack, which he had at the
| depot. In order to prevent plaintiff
| from doing so the defendant was
| Obliged to use force on him and the
| plaintiff resisted. we'll knowing that the
| defendant was an officer in the dis
| charge of his duty. Sheehey says he
| used no more force than was necessary
| to preserve the peace and to protect the
| lady from assault. indignity and per-
sonal violence. The defendant denies
that he acted maliciously or without
| reasonable cause. and AYERS that he
| gently laid hands on the plaintiff to re-
| strain him and if he sustained any in
| jury, which the defendant denies, it was
| the result of his unlawful acts in re-
fusing to obey the lawful commands of
| the defendant, a police officer. M. D..
| Leehey is council for Sheehey
| Edwin Bray yesterday filed an answer
to the suit brought against him and
/ his brother, John Z. Bray, an action
/ N hax VIC. hnn mt toll n n Irla
tribute some money belonging to the
defendants and over which they got in
to dispute. Edwin Bray says in his
answer that in February, 1888. his
father, Edwin Bray ST., had on deposit
in the Hibernia bank of California
/ 1873. 266. s5 and he gave to John E. Bray
an order as his agent to draw the
/ money from the bank and invest it
/ in the stock of the Spring Valley Water
company. which he did. but in violation
of the trust placed in him by Bray sr.,
| he purchased 80 shares of stock in his
own name with 81 $3.50 of the money
and converted the remaining SGl2.83 TO
his own use and has ever since with
! held it from the estate In September,
1885. when Edwin Bray ST. discovered
the breach of trust. he revoked the
| agency of John e Bray and authorized
his brother, Edwin Bray, to act as
agent and control and manage the in
vestment Since then John ID. Bray
has had no interest or authority over
the stock.
The agency of John f. Bray was re-
| yoked on account of his fraudulent acts
| in the purchase of the stock in his own
name and the conversion of the S612 So
| to his own use and on account of his
| failure to account for the dividends
| earned by the stock. Thereafter the
| father repea11...y declared that John r.
should never receive or inherit any por-
ton of the stock and during his lifetime
the father sold five shares of the stock
and before his death gave the remain
ing 25 shares to his wife, Martha Bray
| who was the mother of all the de-
| PENDANTS. The gift was accompanied
| by request that before her death she
should dispose of the stock to the de-
PENDANTS Edwin and Lucy Bray. either
by gift or otherwise. During her life
time she sold five shares more and be-
fore her death, and considering that the
H612.S3 obtained by John E. was all ht
was entitled to receive from his fathers
estate. and in consideration of the care
and attention on the part of Lucy Bray
and the services of Edwin. transferred
to them the remaining shares Of stock
Last June the stock was sold fol-
Isl, 015, the expense of which was $50
leaving a balance of 1880. which be
longs to the two defendants Edwin ant
Lucy, and to which John E. has M
right or title. 1t was the intention d
the father that the $612.S3 fraudulentis
obtained by John E., should be charged
against him as an Offset to any claim
he might have against the estate. Th'
court is asked for Judgment to tina
effect and that the money in the pos
session of the First National bank b.
| turned over to the answering defend
ants O. NJ. Hall is their attorney.