The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-07
HOUSE AND LOT
he Put the Property In the Name
Of Hts Wife.

Of His Wife.
| NOW HE WANTS 1T BACK
Mr.. and Mrs. siseel Were Recently d.
vorcsd and Mrs.. sisgel. 1t Seems
Now. WIN Not Give Up the
Real Estate.
A small family skeleton was exhib-
tied In Department II. of the district
court yesterday during the trial Of a
suit Of Elias Siegel against Phoebe Sic
gel over he Ownership Of q house and
lot on the west side. h couple were
formerly husband and wife, but they
were recently divorced by a North Da-
kota court. According to the statement
of the plaintiff. on June 2, 1890. he
bought lot Z, block 4, Of the Excelsior
addition and paid $500 for 1t. and had
the deco made out in the name Of his
wife. He afterwards erected q $500
residence on II. He was at that time
manager for the Goldsmith Clothing
company. and the latter became insol-
vent because one Of the partners alb
seconded. He was afraid he might be-
come involved in the Goldsmith failure
In some way and for that reason he put
the property in his wife's name. In
December, 1896. she deserted him and
49, DavHA Aa4L -. -yAsAh .Aa.A- hA
sued to get the property back. Her
statement was that the lot was pur-
chased by herself and her brother, Isaac
NJ. Symons, and that she afterwards
bought her brothers interest m bor-
rowed money with which, together with
her own money. she built the house. She
said her husband put a few hundred dol
dred dollars into the house. but he made
her an absolute and free gift of IL. Sic
gel admitted that his former brother-in-
law had owned a half interest In the
lot. but he bought 1t from him for $500.
The plaintiff was represented ut the
trial by Thompson Campbell and George
w. Stapleton, and the defendant by
Frank f.. Corbett and Charles Mattison.
The jury drawn was composed of j.
Waters, Thomas Tronrud, w. w. Walls
WORTH Terry Lennon, c. H. Moore,
George Gum. S. H. Almon. James
LUXE, y. ~. Ell1Ott, JOnn SOmDO, Jdfnes
Brett and A. Buzzetti.
Elias Siegel, the plaintiff, was the
first witness put on the stand.
Did you know the defendant on the
End of June. 1902" asked Mr.. Campbell.
Yes, SIR"
What relation existed between you
and the defendant at that timer"
"She was my wife at that time"
What relation exists between you
now?"
None whatever"
The witness was asked relative to the
purchase of the property and questioned
as to the understanding he had with
Mrs. Siegel.
For whom did you purchase the
property"
Mr.. Corbett entered an objection and
said the complaint alleged an express
trust and that could be proved only by
documentary evidence-by evidence in
writing. He cited authorities and ar
gued that il the plaintiff had no such
proof i'm writing there was no more tes-
timony to be taken and the case would
have to fall to the ground.
Mr.. Campbell, in reply said that an
express contract was not alleged, but
hat the trust was created by operation
OF law and need not be set out in writ
ing. He said IL was an involuntary
trust. or a resulting trust. The court
overruled the objection and said the
trust was a resulting one.
Mr.. Corbett asked that he record
show that the court ruled that 1t was
a resulting trust.
mo. 1 Won't do that" said Judge
Clancy.
IF this is a resulting trust a different
law applies than would if 1t were an ex-
pressed trust" said Mr.. Corbett, land
We want the record to show It,"
mo, I don't want that at ALL won't
have it," said the court.
Mr.. Siegel then resumed his testimony
and said he bought the property for
himself and hat his wife did not know
for a long time that the deed was made
out in her name. He said he had the
property put in her naine because he
might become involved In the affairs of
Goldsmith & Co.. and he wanted to save
his home for himself.
Mr.. Corbett made an objection be-
cause the testimony in some respects did
not agree with the complaint. The court
overruled his objection, but Mr.. Corbett
suggested that IL the pleadings alleged
that the moon was made of green cheese
it would be immaterial In the case.
1T would be your business to demur
to It," said the court, "and IL you did
not, 1t would remain cheese"
On cross-examination Mr.. Corbett
asked Mr.. Siegel il he did not swear to
the complaint that he paid 5000 cash
for the lot out of his own pocket. He
said he did.
And now you say you paid only
s3oO?"
Il paid 500 altogether with the $500
i paid to Ike Symons."
when you swore to II in your COM
plant that at the time of the purchase
you paid $500. you swore to what was
not true?"
II took my lawyers word for IT,"
You swore to what was false7"
We'll, ! took my lawyers word for \
IT,"
what your lawyers tell you?"
Il am accustomed to AXE their coun-
sci N advice"
las TO what you shall swear to?"
mo. on matters of law"
did your wife have no money Of her