The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-02
THE KITTY MORRIS CASE
Jury Instructed to Return a Yer
dict for Defendants.
0lDS HAD NO AUTHORITY
The Defendants Were Not Responsible
for the Debts Contracted by the
Managerial Second Cause OF
Action to Be Tried.

a ANANNg 1dcts III hniCh Il. II.
Congdon sued Charles s. Hartman,
Charles w. Hoffman. Walter Cooper
and others for something like 81. 900
which he had to pay on a note at the
Silver Bow national bank as surety
for L. b. Olds. the mining manager for
the defendants. came to an end last
evening by Judge Lindsay sustaining
a motion to instruct the jury for the
defendants on the main cause OF ac-
ton. The motion was based on the
testimony. the weight of which went
to show hat Odds had no authority to
contract the Indebtedness. and that the
defendants were not responsible for IL.
The trial will probably be resumed this
morning on the second cause of action.
which involves only $3.50 on a LAIN
assigned to the plaintiff by Bennett
Bros.
c. w. Hoffman. one of the defend
ants. was on the witness stand yester-
day morning and testified that Olds
told them when they started operating
the Kitty Morris that il would not cost
each of them more than $500 to deter
mine whether the mine would prove a
paying proposition or not, and nat
would be the limit of the liability OF
each. Mr.. Hoffman said Olds had no
instructions to borrow money. and that
the parties from the company were al
way ready and willing to put up
money on Olds' estimates. aid he was
specifically not to borrow
money and not to run al overdraft.
When the 5000 overdraft was called to
their attention they declined to recog-
nize II as their liability. but finally. on
1 aarafn thnt 60 100 90 tho w.AnAv hnI
beer used on the Kitty Morris. they
concluded to pay that sum of 1t. al
though not recognizing any liability.
"The payment of It," said Mr.. Hoffman.
was a sort of accommodation matter
and was made on the representations
that the non had been used in devel-
oping the mine. Cashier Harrington
and Olds were present when the money
was paid. and Odds laid. addressing the
witness: Charley. / would give 90 years
of my life IL this thing had not &C.
Cured"
Mr.. Hoffman at that time told Con
gresham Hartman to write out a re-
ceipt that would cover and end the
whole thing and to make the receipt
just as long as he could, so that IT
would take in everything. The inten-
ton was to get the thing settled finally
and for good, and they paid money they
really felt they were not liable for. At
that time they heard nothing of any
note signed by Olds and Congdon. and
the matter was not mentioned by Mr..
Harrington, who was negotiating the
settlement. Mr.. Harrington made no
lain that the defendants owed the
bank anything, but he wanted TO fix
the anal up so IL would look better on
the banks books. At the time the de-
PENDANTS started on the Kitty Morris
IL was represented to them hat II. a.
Largey was interested in the property.
and they supposed he was in il. Mr..
Hoffman said that II Olds had not left
the country. or IL II had not been re-
ported that he was dead. the defendants
would never have heard anything OF
the note.
II never understood" said Mr.. Hon-
man, why Mr.. Congdon renewed the
note four times and not even notified
US OF the existence of such a paper"
George Cox. another of the defend
ants, testified to a similar state of facts
as the other defendants. At the con-
clusion Of the testimony the attorneys
for the defense made the following mo-
ton to instruct the jury for a verdict:
Now come the defendants, Charles
S. Hartman, Charles Hoffman. j. j.
kountz. w. r. Northup, George Cox,
and moves the court to instruct the jury
to render a verdict for these defendants
upon the first cause OF action, or take
lIOIl III July an tOilNllt1 dllDh vi III
first cause of action. for the following
reasons. to-wit: First-That the evil
dence conclusively shows that these
persons were mining partners prior to
the 18th day of April, 1892. and that
after that time they continued as a
corporation, and was such corporation
at the time of the execution of this
note and were. at best. mining part
ners, and that as one of the co-partners,
the defendant l.. IL. Odds, had no au-
thority to execute the note in question
or borrow money which would bind the
defendants, or any OF them, in this ac-
ton.
And further that the evidence con
clusiyely shows that the defendant, l..
Il. Olds. had no authority from mis- CO.
defendants in this action. or any OF
them. to execute the note. or to bor-
row money upon the note.
Further. that the evidence conclu-
sively shows that the Silver Bow Ma
tional bank, the predecessor i'm interest
OF the plaintiff to the promissory note
sued upon. was the owner of such note
on the 2lst day of April, 1898. and that
at that time Fayette Harrington, who
made a settlement for and on behalf OF
the bank of all matters in controversy
with these defendants, knew Of the ex-
istence of said note and claimed that 1t
was a liability against these defendant
In this action and that he said nothing
TO these defendants at a time of It's
existence. or that he claimed that IT
was a liability against them, and that
the evidence shows that the defendants
had no knowledge Of the existence of
said note. but that the bank claimed
that they were liable thereon and set
tied the same and all controversies with
the bank. without knowledge Of its ex-
~istence. believing that they were set !
Ting all liabilities claimed by the bank
against them.
For the further reason that the re- |
ceipt offered in evidence and admitted
by Mr.. Harrington TO be his receipt |
shows that he released these parties of
all liability on the 21st day OF April. |
1892. and that Mr.. Congdon was thereby |