The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-04-13
THEIR PRICE $4,000
Lawyers Sue Their Old Clients
for Attorney Fees.
THE BIG HOLE DAM SITE
IL Il Said That Mr.. Dolman and His
Partners Got $4,000 Out Of the
Montana Power Company
in Settlement.

E. N. Harwood. F. T. Mcbride and
Robert Mcbride. attorneys for Peter
r. Dolman. Eugene Carver and Carroll
G. Dolman in the suits brought against
them by the Montana Power company
over the Big Hole dam site, yesterday
commenced suit in the district court
against their former clients for $40. 900
as attorneys fees in the case. 1t is
evident from the complaint that DOL
man n his partners got $36 900 out or
the power company on a settlement by
which the ground in controversy was
secured by the company without furth-
er litigation. The complaint of the at
torneys alleges that Dolman located
the Mamie d. lode claim, Helen lode
claim, Matte lode claim and the Big
Hole placer. all ear the town of Di-
vide, on the banks of the Big Hole
river, and lying partly in Silver Bow
and partly in Beaverhead counties. The
locators applied for a patent and the
power company, having located the
identical ground as a reservoir site for
the urpos of storing water. filed a
protest in the land office against the
Dolman application for a patent on the
Big Hole placer. The power company
alleged in it's protest that the mining
claim was not placer mining ground,
and was of no value for suc
The register and receiver of the land
office ordered a hearing on the contest,
and appointed job Blen commissioner
to take the testimony. The examina-
ton was begun on March 10 and con-
cluded on March 81. An adverse suit
was also brought in the district our
by the power company. Another ad-
verse suit was instituted against Dol
man and his crowd by ]. S. Cummings,
T. J. Tanning, A. j. Clifford, H. M.
Byllesby. w. p. Johnston. II. H. Huey.
and w. f. Bramhall, locators of the
Canyon placer. covering the same
ground as h Big Hole placer. and a
suit was brought in the United States
circuit court. Still another action was
brought by Lou V. Bedard and j. o.
Thomas, locators of the Valley lode
claim. The power company also
brought suits in Silver Bow and Bea-
verhead counties for the purpose of
having the ground condemned for use
by the company as a reservoir. A pro-
ceeding was also brought in the United
States court for the purpose of obtain
ing an order enabling the company to
prospect the and and determine its
character. Continuing, the complaint
says the plaintiffs. the three attorneys,
being in the employ of the defendants,
took necessary proceedings. had the
district court cases removed to the
United States court. p. r.. Dolman was
the duly constituted and appointed
agent of his son, Carroll G. Dolman,
and for Eugene Carver, and employed
the plaintiff attorneys. Accordingly
they appeared in every case n de-
Tended and prosecuted. maintained and
protected the rights of the defendants,
and secured a decision and judgment in
their favor Ito their great advantage,
behalf and profit The services and
anttneaI rnnIaral ~ oil - A.
able alu of &c. 900, which is due and
unpaid and is withheld by %unreason-
able n vexatious delay.
The plaintiffs further allege that
connected with and growing out of the
litigation referred to a certain COM
promise agreement and settlement was
made and contaminated between the
Dolman people and the Montana Power
company in settlement of all litigation
for the sum of $36, 900 for a mere ease
ment to flow water accumulated by
means of the dan over a portion of the
lands in controversy, reserving to the
Dolmans the title to all the lands with
the right to use the water for boating
and other purposes. The power COM
pany in part fulfllment of the agree
ment, on March 30. paid $34,0 900 into the
First National bank for the defendants. |
Upon the conclusion of the proceedings
the plaintiffs mad a eques on the
for $4,000 as reasonable |
compensation for their services, but the
defendants have sought to avoid paw
ment, and deceitfully and wrongfully
sought to defeat the plaintiffs lien on
n in the bank, and sought to
take the money from the custody of
the bank n place it beyond the reach
the plaintiffs. The defendants
sought to obtain a settlement with the
plaintiffs for less than the reasonable
named. and upon the
proposition of such reduction i'm view
of compromise, and not otherwise, the
plaintiffs offered to accept 50, 900 in case
payment should be made without de-
lay. but the defendants failed to ac-
the proposition. Believing il
would be accepted the attorneys served
a notice of lien on the bank for that
amount Of the sum paid in by the DOW
er company. to which the defendants
afterward interposed an objection. AS
further cause of action the plaintiffs
allege that they paid out $4S.5 in costs
for the defendants. for which sum
is also asked. Further judg-
ment Is also asked for 81, 900 as attor-
neys' fees for prosecuting the present
action, n also that the court declare
that the money in the bank be declared
to the plaintiffs lien and that
the bank be ordered to pay the plain
lifts the $1,000 in its possession. The
sum in the hands Of the bank
attached yesterday morning.
George A. Clark is attorney for the