The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-31


tried in said court subsequent TO the
case of Dickinson. should be gotten
out in advance of said Dickinson case,
and that he should insist that the tran
script in said Dickinson case should
be completed first and without unneces-
say delay.
VIII J. Lee, representing the firm of
Toole & Toole of Helena, called on Will
son on Jan. p and demanded that a
transcript of the Dickinson case be
made at once. Wilson told him he had
partly completed the transcript, but
that arrangements had been made by
which the attorneys for Dickinson had
consented to let him drop the Dicken-
son case and begin work on the tran
script of the Moody trial Lee, how
ever. demanded that the Dickinson
transcript be gotten out first. Wilson
consulted with Judge Clancy and the
latter said that inasmuch as demands
had been made for that transcript, he
should go to work on 1t; that in future
he should get out transcripts of cases
In the order in which they were tried.
Wilson's Affidavit.
The most important affidavit is the
one of William NJ. Wilson, the respon-
dent, which is as follows:
william Nj. Wilson, being first duly
sworn, deposes and says: That he is
the William W. Wilson mentioned in
the affidavit of Guy w. Stapleton, pre-
sented upon this application for a writ
OF mandate directed to this affiant, and
In this connection affiant denies that he
mas utterly failed to perform his duty
IN connection with the transcribing of
the testimony, exceptions. objections
rulings, decisions and opinions of the
court taken, made and entered upon the
.Iiai OF the case OF the state of Mon
tana VS.. Frank Moody as mentioned
and alleged in the affidavit OF said Guy
w. Stapleton, and in this connection
affiant further alleges that he has at all
times been ready and will
ing TO full transcribe the
testimony and other matters
connected with and growing out of the
trial of the case of the state against
FRANK Moody as soon as other matters
were disposed of pertaining to his of
nee as stenographer of the district
court No. OF Silver Bow county, Mon
tana, as hereinafter more fully set forth
and in this connection afIiant further
denies that he has at any time been
guilty of any neglect in relation there
to-
Aftiant further says in answer to the
statement contained in SAID affidavit of
Guy w. Stapleton, that this affiant had
been repeatedly requested to prepare
the said transcript, that John T. Bald
win, associate counsel for the state in
said case, has stated to this affiant in
a peremptory manner that he this
affiant, was compelled to get out said
transcript, and that this affiant must
drop other cases which had been tried
prior to the said Moody case without
regard to the demands of others inter-
ested in such other cases, and the said
Baldwin further insisted that this af-
faint must follow his instructions even
II this affiant disobeyed the orders of
the court in relation thereto. and when
this affiant protested and informed the
said Baldwin that the court had di-
rected this affiant to prepare the tran
script in a certain case known as the
state of Montana VS.. Dickinson, which
case had been tried prior to the Moody
case, the said Baldwin then in an in.
sultng manner said: What has he
(meaning the COURT to do with it?"
Affiant further says in answer to the
charge made in said affidavit that this
affiant had frequently made various ex-
cuSeS why the same could not be fur
nished. Il didn't make any ex-
cuses only that | had other work ahead
of it, and specified the cases. at least
tour or five, and Informed them that
would have 1t out as soon as possible:
that besides working myself at all
times when not engaged in court, that
| mad typewriter working for me
whom | paid myself without any re-
Enumeration from the county or anyone
else
Judge Clancy's instructions.
Affiant further says in answer to the |
statement contained In said affidavits |
having relation to the case of the state |
VS.. ID. N Dickinson that on Saturday.
the I'D day of January, 1898, there was |
some understanding IN the presence of |
afhant between the county attorneys /
office and MeSsrs. Booth and Bloor, who !
were then attorneys for the said Dick /
hson, that aff1ant might suspend the /
Iranscriblng of the testimony in the !
tase against Dickinson, and that affi-
ant should then proceed with the work
IL tranScribing the testimony in the
Moody case, and that affiant then i'm
nediately procured his notes from the
lies or the court, and was preparing
o at once go TO work tranScribinE the
testimony in the said Moody case: af-
liant further says that soon after and
lpon the same day, he received word
rom Governor Toole through one Will
!. Lee that the firm OF Toole & Tooe
lad been employed to defend Dickin-
son and to apply to the court for a new
rial, and the said Lee then and there |
II behalf of said Toole & Toole. made
lemand upon this affiant and insisted
hat this affiant should at once proceed
nd prepare the transcript in the Dick
nson case, and for that purpose should |
suspend work upon any or all other
W iiItIl NGit lIItb SUBSEQUENT 10
he said Dickinson case, and that this
Infant for the purpose of ascertaining
What he should do in the premises APP
lied to the judge of said court and in
ubstance was informed by said Judge
hat If Governor Toole demanded that
he transcript in the Dickinson case
Mould be first prepared, that then ii
vas the duty of this affiant to proceed
With such work in preference to that of
he Moody case, and that II was
he duty of atfiant 10 proceed with the
work. of transeribing the testimony of
he various cases in the order in which
hey We're tried unless counsel should
therwise agree. and that it was on ac-
cunt Of the demand made upon affiant
y Messrs. Toole q Toole that this affi-
mt should proceed at once with the
1ork of transcribing the testimony in
he Dickinson case, that this afiiant did
OF at once enter upon the work of
the testimony in the Moody
ase and that afiiant fully believed that
was the duty of afiiant under the cir
ct IA F4a,