The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-03-10
BUTTE News.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
A Suit for Damages Brought by
John Webb
AGAINST MANAGER HESS
The Complaint Alleges That Hess Called
Him a Thief-Beatrice Tuck er Asks
for a Separation From
Her Husband

A suit for $4,000 damages was
brought in the district court yesterday
by John Webb against Lou Hess, man
ager of Cans & Klein's store in Butte.
The complaint in the case alleges that
the plaintiff is by occupation clerk
and salesman and that on the first of
this month. in the Cans & Klein store.
the defendant uttered these false and
scandalous words about the plaintiff:
He is nothing but thief and a
-" meaning the plaintiff. and To his
great damage. in the sum of $4,000.
Webb had been a clerk in Cans X
Kleins and was discharged on the tirst
of the month.
Beatrice Tucker yesterday commenced
suit for divorce against her husband,
Walter G. Tucker. on the ground OF
cruelty. She says they were married
in Chicago on Nov. 10, 1888, and have
two children. boy aged 10 and girl
aged years Mrs. Tucker alleges that
on the 18th of last month her husband
called her vile names and on the 26th
used indecent language and accused her,
in the presence of their children. OF un-
chastity. On March he choked her
and threatened to kill her. She asks to
be awarded the custody of the children.
Jane Suuires also brought suit for di-
ground Of non-support. She says they
were married in Salt Lake Oct. 4. 1885,
and that for more than Il year he has
contributed nothing to her support, al
though he has 81 900 in cash and earns
$40 a month.
A deposition of S. w Hurst of Kan
sas City. Mo. to be used in the suit of
Lee Mantle against the estate of Pat
rick A. Largely for an interest in the
Spectator lode claim which it is al
legged Mr.. Largely had held in trust for
Mr.. Mantle. Hurst testifies that he
had a lease on the Spectator in 1895,
and denies that there was any fraudu-
lent collision between himself and
Largely relative to any interest MIR.
Mantle had in the Spectator. There
was no collision or agreement of any
kind between myself and Mr.. Largey
or anybody else" says Hurst. Il have
no knowledge of Mr.. Mantle having an
interest in the Spectator; never heard
his name connected with II until the
beginning of this suit He never had
any interest in the Spectator 10 my
knowledge, and Mr.. Largely never had
any interest in the lease and bond re-
ferred to. the lease and bond having
been taken by me in the best of faith"
Hurst testifies TO another lease on
the mine in 1885 made out in the name
of Charles Stewart. Hurst owned a
half interest in ii and Dave Upton the
other half. +. A. Largey acted as
agent for Hurst at the time and dis
bursed the funds. and when they had
settlement Hurst found himself in
debt to Largey in the sum of So 600 He
denies that Largey paid out the money
from his own pocket for the work on
the mine under both leases.
Sewed Shoe company against John
0Rourke Thomas 0'Rourke and A.
Ducharme, which had been set for trial
in Judge Clancys court yesterday, was
continued until April IL on the applica-
tion of John O'Rourke because Du-
charme, one of the defendants and
material witness. is serving on the jury
in the United States court. In an affi-
davit asking for the continuance Mr.
ORourke says Ducharme will testify
that he and one Shaw carried on the
boot and shoe business for some time
and then Thomas O'Rourke purchased
Shaw's interest, and prior to that time
John ORourke. the afiiant. also pur-
chased an interest in the business and
the three defendants continued part
ners until May 1894, when the partner
ship was dissolved and the affiant
withdrew from the firm and published
Thomas O'Rourke continued in the
business and John O'Rourke became a
creditor of the partnership in a sum to
exceed $50, 600. All drummers and
agents of shoe companies were notified
of the change. including the plaintiff
The affidavit also states that John A.
Shelton. attorney for the plaintiff
caused the dispositions of A. Ducharme
John O'Rourke. Thomas ORourke and
John Norton to be taken and now re-
fuses to return them into court. and
there is now an order pending against
him TO show cause why they should not
be returned. D'Rourke says he believes
the dispositions were taken for the pur-
pose of discovery and not in good faith
to be used at the trial
John Norton also made an affidavit
which was filed in support OF the mo-
ton for a continuance. He says that
in response To a letter from Attorney
Shelton he called at the latters office.
During the conversation. says Norton.
shelton said that If | would testify in
behalf of the plaintiff. the American
Hand Sewed Shoe company. there was
no money offered at the time. but in
case the suit was won | would receive
a consideration. and Shelton requested
me to make deposition before / went
to the city of San Francisco. which
refused TO do
Mr.. Shelton also made an affidavit