The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-31
HAS FILED HIS ANSWER
Kemper Says Lavell Is Not an
Owner of the Red Cloud.
A QUESTION OF FORGERY
The Charge Is Answered With a Denial.
Another Complaint in Fitchett's
Suit for Damages-The
Bankson Case.

James w. Kemper, defendant in the
suit brought by William Lavell To re-
cover possession of a fourth interest in
the Red Cloud and Brilliant mining
claims. located in the southwestern
part of the city, which, he says. haYe
become very valuable and out Of which,
he alleges. he was defrauded, and
makes charges of fraud and forgery,
filed his answer in court yesterday.
Kemper admits that Lavell was, prior
to June s, 1891, the owner of a fourth
interest in the Red Cloud mine. but
claims that he has not been such owner
since that time. on that date he deed
ed his interest to John O'Rourke. and
the defendant denies that the deed was
intended as "A mortgage. on Aug. 10,
1891. the plaintiff Joined O'Rourke in a
deed to John Sattes. Robert Dumon
and Frank Leonard. and IL is alleged
that the deed was IN absolute one.
The day following the three men deed
ed to O'Rourke a portion of the Bril-
liant lode claim and a part of the Red
cloud, but with no understanding that
he should hold IL in trust for Lavell or
to secur any Indebtedness. 1t is de-
MED that Lavell and O'Rourke. on
April l, 1892. decided the same property
to f.. ID. lie Glare pom the latter agree
ing to pay the Indebtedness and note
referred to by Lavell. The defendant
admits hat he recorded a deed con-
veying the property to the Northwest
ern Brick q Supply company, but de-
MES that the deed ever was or was in
tended to be delivered to lie Glare or
that his name was scratched from the
deed n the name of the brick COM
mi ny CuhGfifutaH nrinr IN tho npliVRrV
of the deed.
lie Glare and O'Rourke were both in
terested i'm the company, and the de-
PENDANT admits that he has possession
of the deed and claims the right To the
property, which he purchased. at sher-
ilf's sale when the brick company own
ers had "A business disagreement n
the property got into the courts. The
question of forgery. which is raised in
the suit. is disposed of in the answer
with a denial that the deed from Lavell
and O'Rourke to the brick company
was a forgery or a fraud against the
plaintiff or to his damage. Kemper
says he has expended a large amount
of money in improvements on the
property and the plaintiff should be
estOpped from asserting any interest
or claim to il. The Northwestern Brick
& Supply company, after its purchase
from Lavell and O'RCurke, took pos
StSSlbl III lht property NllADul l'litt.
protest or objection from Lavell. and
paid full value for the property, and
was. to all intents and purposes, an
innocent and IONA fde purchaser for n
valuable consideration on Nov. 10.
1894. lie Glare obtained a judgment
against the brick company for $1,46O
and an execution was issued. and on
which the sheriff sold the mining inter-
ests in question and the defendant be
came the purchaser for a sufficient and
valuable consideration. J. l.. and NJ. l..
Wines are Kemper's attorneys.
$. f. Fitchett. in his damage suit
against Mrs. X. u. Tam. John Finne-
gan. w. II. Wix and Cyrus Symons,
flied another complaint in court yester-
day. He says that on Feb. "a. 1897,
Mrs. Tam commenced an action against
him in Justice L~aurandeau's court for
$3.50. due on an alleged debt. and had
an attachment issued, which was
placed on his building. the notice being
posted i'm n conspicuous place. where
IL could be and vas observed and COM
mented upon by many friends of the
plaintiff. as well as by his creditors
and persons with whom he was en-
gagged i'm business. The alleged debt
sued for was wholly without merit. as
the defendant was not indebted To
Mrs. Tam in N sun whatsoever, and
il was not such a claim as the statutes
of the state provide may be secured
by attachment, and by causing the at
tachment to be levied, the plaintiff in
that action acted maliciously. The
case was tried and a verdict given in
favor of Fitchett and Tam took an
appeal to the district court. where the
attachment was discharged and the
case again decided against Mrs. Tam.
Finnegan. Wix and Symons were
sureties on her attachment bond.
Fitchett further says that prior TO the
attachment he had a good business i'm
Butte and had many friends and ac-
q~uaintances. among HON he was in
good standing socially, and he had n
good business reputation and credit.
by reason of the malicious attachment
ne had To pay out 1925 for counsel fees,
and was compelled to lose time ron
his business at "A loss to him of Sl75.
He also alleges that his business repu-
tation and social and commercial
standing was damaged i'm the sum Of
s., 00O. ana therefore demands Judgment
i'm all for $500.
In the case of the state against
Charles Bankson, a stipulation was en-
tered into between the attorneys YES
terday. giving the defendant until the
LIST Of September in which to serve and
file his statement on motion for a new
trial.
T.. II. sherman yesterday petitioned
the court for letters Of administration
on the estate Of Mary Cannon. he
ceased. The estate. he says consists
of $500 I'm cash and an inheritance in
the estate of her husband. now pending
in court.
Charles \. Davidson has petitioned
the Court for letters of administration
on the estate Of his father, y. h. David
son. deceased. The estate consists of "A
half interest in the business of y. Il.
Davidson * Co, valued at 1000.
$50 sets of teeth for so. DIR. Wix.