The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-22
BY THE SUPREME COURT.
A Few Decisions Handed Down in Helena
Yesterday.


Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena, Feb. ai.-The supreme court
rendered three opinions this morning,
one of which was on an appeal from
silver Bow county. 1t was entitled IN
the matter of the estate of Charles
Horsfall, Henry Royles, petitioner. APP
pelant, and was an appeal from an or
der made by Judge Lindsay. The point
involved was whether the proceeds of
an administrators sale of mortgaged
chattels may be applied towards pay
ing the expenses of administration
other than those incident to such sale.
Henry Royles. the petitioner, asked
the lower court to issue an order direct
ing the administrator of the estate OF
Charles Horsfall. deceased. to pay to
him $3.50 less the costs of sale of GER
tain personal property, mortgaged by
deceased to petitioner Royles, said sum
being the proceeds Of the mortgaged
property at an administrators sale
The administrator insisted that Royles
was entitled only to that sum remain
ing after the general expenses of ad-
ministraton of the estate had been de-
Quoted from the sum realized at the
sale. The district court held to the
same effect, Judge Pigott finds that
the lower court erred and holds that
appellants overwhelmingly. the lien
on deeedent's ehattels-cannot be les
mourning of general expenses in the
course of administration. Judgment
reversed and the cause remanded with
directions 10 determine the application
in conformity with the views expressed
in the opinion.
The court granted n new trial to Ju-
Illus ReChnitZ, at present serving a six
year sentence In the penitentiary for
larceny in the first degree. Last spring
RechnitZ and a woman OF the town by
the name of Lottie Kennedy were ar
rested here on complaint of n Nerdant
stranger by the name of y. w. Goode.
The latter. who had just come to Hell
ena from ranch in Broadwater coun-
". was inveigled into a clore street
dive run by the woman and her pri-
Vate secretary. RechnitZ. and robbed of
1925. The woman was tried and con-
Vieted of larceny in the first degree. \
similar fate was in store for RechnitZ
when his case got to the jury. His at
torney claimed that RechnitZ was
guilty only of receiving stolen prop
erty, since the woman stole the money
and gave ii to him. He moved for a
new trial. but the same was denied.
| Then he appealed To the supreme court
alleging as a reversible error that the
I district judge in his instructions To the
| jury in defining the crime of larceny
| omitted the word "feloniously'' or any
Z other word or words equivalent there
| to. necessary to indicate that in larceny
IA felonious or evil intent is necessary
To authorize conviction.
Justice Hunt. who Whole the opinion
reversing the lower court. held i'm re-
gard to the omission of the word Eel
! onious:"
1T is plain now that the instruction
assailed by the appellant i'm this case
/ WAS fatally incomplete. The element
| OF a felonious intent. or animus furadi
| that vitality important distinction be-
/ tween a larceny and a trespass, was
not included in the definition given Id
any way. The defendant could have
taken the property described in the in
formation. under claim of right with
I intent to deprive the owner of his prop
erty. or could have aided Lottie Ken
nedy in appropriating the same 5,
taken by her. under an honest belief
that he or she was the owner and yet
have been declared guilty of grand lar
eeny. The omission was. therefore, AT
error for which the judgment must bt
reversed and a new trial awarded
If therefore. Rechnitz was moi
guilty OF larceny, whether as principa
actor or as an alder or abettcr, vet wa,
guilty OF the statutory crime Of reseiv,