The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-05-04
THROWN OUT OF COURT
Canty Remembered the Maine
but Not the Conversation.
Vol ENOUGH EVIDENCE
Bartender vancovich Will Keep On
Mixing Drinks Behind the Bars Of
Butte Instead Of Loahng Behind
b Bars OF Deer Lodge.

,"e@ VI P.s'.
Vancovich. a bartender at Lynch Bros
saloon. in West Granite street. grow
ing out of the recent trial of the suit
of Phil J. Harrington against the Butte
and Boston company. was dismissed at
the conclusion of the preliminary hear
ing in Justice Laurandeau's court yes
terday afternoon. 1t will be remem-
bered that J. A. Leggat. some three
years ago. gambled away n check for
$500 which had been intrusted to him
by the Butte and Boston company.
Phil j. Harrington casned the check,
but payment was stopped, and Har-
rington, claiming to have paid the face
value. brought suit against the Butte
and Boston company for the full
amount. The case was tried. and at
its conclusion an appeal was taken, the
supreme court ordering a new trial.
which was a o a month ago.
Bartender Vancovich war a witness at
the last trial, and testified hat suisse
quent to the check transaction, and
prior to the last trial, Harrington came
to Lynch's saloon one evening and In
the presence of one James CAVITY asked
V~ancovich to stay with his side of the
case. also asking II he (Vancovich) was
afraid of his job. and saying IL he was
he tHarrington) would see he got a
better one. Harrington claimed his
was false testimony. and at his in
stance Vancovich vas arrested and
proceeded against for perjury. The
preliminary hearing came up yesterday
afternoon before Justice Laurandeau.
Chief Deputy County Attorney Con-
molly appearing for the state, and At
torney Parr for the defense.
At the opening of the hearing a
s.a a.. ~. TN-Ias. amp
In the district court was submitted by
stipulation. and James Canty was then
called to the stand as the first witness,
and asked IL he was ever present at a
conversation between the defendant
and p. j. Harrington which had ref
ence to the loss of the check by j. A.
Leggat and the suit brought by Har-
rington to collect the amount of h
check. The witness said he had no
recollection OF having been present at
any such conversation.
did you ever hear a conversation
between the defendant inc p. j. Har-
rington, in which Harrington asked
this defendant to stay with his side of
the case. or IL he was afraid of his
job, or in which Harrington offered him
a better job?"
Lynch's saloon at a time after the
''fN ,ehe ooai' ah'e a'as
ing of suit by Harrington. Harring-
ton and the defendant were present. l
cannot remember what the conversa-
ton was about, but 1 think II was
something in regard to the check. l
don't remember hearing Mr.. Harring-
ton make any such remarks"
Phil j. Harrington was next called
and asked IL he ever had the alleged
conversation with the defendant. He
replied no. He had been in a wine room
at Lynch's saloon with Canty prior to
the check transaction, but never after.
He had never asked the defendant If
he could stay with his side OF the case
In his suit against the Butte n Bos-
ton company. The witness stated that
he cashed the check in question on the
morning of February 10. 1885. That
evening he was home all the evening,
and the two subsequent evenings he
was on duty at his own saloon all of
both nights.
There was no cross-examination. and
MIR. Connolly offered I'm evidence the
district court records in the suit Har-
rington brought against the Butte and
Boston company.
The state closed, n Mr.. Parr moved
for dismissal on the ground that IL had
not been shown that the defendant had
ever made the statements alleged. un-
der oath. MIR. Connolly said he under
stood that was a part of the first stipu-
lation. The point was finally admit
ted, and Mr.. Parr asked for dismissal
on the ground that the statute required
perjury to be proven by two witnesses.
holding that the witness CAVITY. in say
ing he did not remember, did not COR
roborate't the evidence of the prosecut-
ing witness. Mr.. Parr read the statute
relating to this contention. and held
the state had failed to prove that the
testimony of the defendant in the dis
trict court was not the truth, point
ing. i'm support of his contention. to the
witness Canty's testimony. I'm which he
said he had been present i'm the wine
room when a conversation was had be-
tween Harrington and the defendant I'm
relation to the check, but could not
remember what the conversation was.
Judge Laurandeau too Mr.. PARIS view
- - a-.aAa.Aa 49, li-~.l---l 49,