The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-05-19
The Suit of A. N. Yoder vs., 8. j.
Reynolds, Ex-Sheriff.
A DIVORCE SUIT FILED
Ludger Vadnais Alleges That His Wife
Deserted Him Without Provoca-
ton on His Part-A Decree
in the Thomas Case.

SneIiH, WHO II. however, only the nOm1-
nal defendant. the parties at interest
being A. +. Bray, l.. O%ppenheiune,, the
Davidson Grocery company I'M Nelson
Story. Yoder sues TO recover damages
for the alleged illegal seizure of a stock
Of groceries which he claimed to have
owned by purchase from M. Graehl.
The defendants on the other hand as
sert that the transfer of the stock to
Yoder was fraudulent and made for the
purpose of defrauding them.
The testimony showed thai the
Graehls had been in business since about
1890. first in connection with one jacob
son, who they bought out in 1894, for
$500. the firm then becoming Graehl
& Graehl, and i'm 1896 l.. GraehI claims
to have sold his interest to his brother
for $500, giving him a bill Of sale. Dur
ing the time the brothers were to-
gether they borrowed $500 from Yoder,
for which the firm notes were given and
which were never paid.
The cross-examlnation of the Graehls
developed that at the time of the trans
fer to Yoder the concern was consider
ably in debt and that the stock was
SOiu " iOutI dlu tue DOOk ACCOUNTS 10
j. :. Graehl, a third brother, who ad-
mitted that Nj. Graehl had assisted
him in collecting the accounts. but who
denied that NJ. Graehl had received any
portion of the money collected. 1t also
transpired that though he had sold to
Nj. Graehl for $500, he had received In
payment less than 500, partly in goods
and partly i'm cash, and that there had
been no notice of the dissolution of
no ~ !, nNzhfn ,,,hltakaI A., tIat .ftAr
the sale to Yoder the sign of the old
firm demained on the establishment,
and no notice of the sale or change Of
ownership was published.
MIR. Hill, a groceryman, testified a. to
the value Of the stock at the time of
the attachment, N he placed it at
S1.150.
Lawyer O'Donnell testified that he had
drawn the transfer from l.. to NJ.
Graehl and identified the paper that was
shown him. He was asked whether at
the time there was any talk in regard
to the transfer being made for the pur-
pose of evading expected attachment by
creditors. Mr.. O'Donnell suggested to
the court that any conversations at that
time were privileged communications,
and that he should not be required to
answer.
The court ruled that unless the client
obJc'ttu III dttOlbty nlust dHSWtl u
Mr.. Mattison, counsel for defendant,
did not press for an answer.
Z a n. Yoder testified that from 1890
up to 1896 he had loaned II. Graehl and
Graehl e. Graehl $3.50. represented by
three notes, neither of which had been
paid. About March Is he became salts
fled that all was not right and demand
ed an immediate settlement, which led
to the purchase of the property for
G1 1ln nxal.totN~n Af fhn hnntx nnantntC
which he did not want.
Mr.. Mattison. for the defendants, then
made "A statement of his side to the
jury. after which the following wit
nesses were called and examined:
Amos Booth testified hat he was en-
gagged in the grocery business. INC had
examined the stock in controversy with
a view to purchasing. as he had rented
the store. He had bid $3.50 for them,
which was as much as they were
worth. Some OF the canned goods were
swollen, indicating they were of lit
tie value. The bottled goods were in
bad shape, some of them actually
spoiled. He thought $500 was as much
as they were actually worth. The sign
of Graehl & Graehl was on a small
board over the door when he took pos
session.
George Symonds. city salesman for
j. T.. Oppenheimer, was acquainted
WITH the nTm Oh tTdtnl a pTdtnl. ne
used to call on them about twice a day
and sell them goods as Graehl Il
Graehl. He saw no change, nor was
he ever notified of any change in the
firm. On the day after the sale to
Yoder he went To the store and found
j. s. Graeh in possession, and later
saw Yoeder, and saw a bill of sale
signed Hiram Graehl. The latter told
the witness: we have sold to Mr..
Yoder." On March 10, 1896. witness re-
ceived a check for $50. signed Graehl
& Graehl. He a examined the stock,
and thought a reasonable value on the
p~erishable goods was SIS. and on the
other goods 1915 at the most.
j. X. Heslet. teller of Clark & Bros
bank. testified that Graehl & Graehl had
an account and did business i'm that
name until March is, 1896. when the
balance, o $50. was drawn by
check. The last deposit. $50. was made
on March II. 1896. in the name of Graehl
& Graehl.
j. Il. O~ppenheimer testified that he
had transacted business with the firm
of Graehl & Graehl in March. 1896.
They did business under hat name up
to March Is, and IN March 10, 1896. they
made a payment to him under the name
Of Graehl & Grachl. He was eve
notified of any change in the partner
ship.
yesterday Ludger Nadnals hled the
complaint in a suit for divorce from his
wife, Mary l.. Vadnais. The complaint
alleges that the parties were married in
Dubois. Idaho. Dec. s, 1893. and that
PLAINTIFF is now a resident Of Butte. That
on Dec. .. 1896. defendant wilfully de-
serted plaintiff and ever since that time
has continued to live apart from him
without his consent and against his
wishes and will. That the desertion was
without cause or provocation. as up to
thai date plaintiff had treated defendant
in a proper and affectionate manner
and was true and faithful in his marital
obligations. There are no children.
The defendant is at present in Ogden.
Utah. and a by publication
was ordered.
An answer was yesterday filed in the
suit of the First National bank OF Butte
VS.. the Twin City-Butte Mining COM
pany. The suit Vas for $4,000. and the
answer alleges that on Feb. Is. 1898. the
plaintiff loaned defendant $4,000 on a