The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-12
He HAS AGAIN DECLINED
To Hear Motion to Dissolve the
Injunction.
A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Granted in the Case CT G. H. Casey
Against John R Lewis-Verdict Di-
rected for Plaintiff = Mantle
We. Largely Estate

dissolve the temporary injunction, and
IN which an appeal was taken by the
defendant, with the result that an al
Tentative writ of mandate was issued
by the supreme court, Judge Lindsay
yesterday again made an order declin
ing to hear the motion to dissolve, and
stated that he would respond to the
alternative writ issued by the supreme
court and show cause to that court on
December Is why he refused to con-
slider the motion. The defendants want
the injunction dissolved so as to permit
them to extract ore beneath the surface
of the Oden lode.
The trial of the case of George II,
Casey against John r. Lewis was prac
tically brought to d close yesterday
morning when Judge Lindsay sus-
tanned the motion of the plaintiff to
strike out the testimony of Mrs. A. Z.
Walcott. respecting her previous pos
session of the property now claimed by
the defendant by virtue of his purchase
thereof from Mrs. Walcott in 1890. 1t
will be remembered that Lewis claimed
to have paid Mrs Walcott $500 for her
rights, and at the time the money was
paid she rendered him a bill of sale
signed slsI. by herself and husband trans
ferring the house and cabin which they
had occupied on the Hesperus lode.
which bill of sale especially stated thai
the land on which they were situated
was not conveyed. This bill of sale,
| however, Lewis did not accept, as it
| was not satisfactory. although the doc
| ument was left at his house. 1t was
then claimed that they entered into a
| verbal agreement for transfer Of not
| only the houses but the real estate also
| and the defendant on the stand testi-
fled that IF anything ever came up
| a hn a fol. MrS Mol II li,.A
would assist him. Any and all conver-
satlons concerning what Mrs. Walcott
said to the defendant Lewis at the time
she turned the property over to. him
| were objected to as immaterial on the
ground that the period of adverse pos
session having expired before the date
| Of her supposed transfer to Lewis, her
title, if any, had ripened into a right,
| and any sale she made should have
been manifested, under the laws of
| Montana, by an instrument in writing,
| and any other kind of attempted con-
veyance was void. 1t was also con-
tended that Mrs. Walcott being a mar
ried woman at the time. her husband
was under the law the head of the fam
lily, and that he was the proper and
only person to determine whether the
| holding of the Hesperus lot was adj
| verse or subject to Casey's title. and
anything the wife did or said was ut
| terly immaterial.
After having examined the author
/ tiles submitted, the court concurred in
| the view taken by the attorneys for
| the plaintiff Evidence was then in
troduced on behalf of defendant, in
| further substantiation of his claim to
| the premises, showing what he had
| done in the way of improving the
ground since the alleged purchase from
| Mrs. Walcott. At the conclusion of the
| testimony on behalf of the defendant,
| ha
| plaintiff. directed the jury to return Il
verdict for the plaintiff. A stay of pro-
ceedings was then, at the request of
| Judge Mcconnell, representing the de-
PENDANT, granted for 30 days.
Judge Lindsay yesterday sustained
| the motion of plaintiff for a continu-
| ance of the case of Lee Mantle against
| the Largey estate. The continuance
was asked for by Mr.. Mantle on the
| ground that he had been given 10 un-
derstand that the case would be settled
and he was therefore unprepared to
go to trial, He also pleaded sickness,
and his physician made an affidavit
that he was verging upon physical
collapse or nervous prostration, and
| that with a due regard for his health
ought not to attend to any business
until after a complete rest for a period
of three months, and seek another eli
mate where he could be quiet and rest
from all business cares. The docto,
further expressed the opinion that il
would be unsafe for Mr. Mantle at Ibis
time to enter upon the preparation 20.
trial of any lawsuit which would re
quire of him any mental labor or ply
steal strain.
In the case of w. Fl. Hall and V. ]
Barlow against the Parchen D'Acheu
Drug company, Henry M. Parchen ant
Harry A. D'Acheul, the defendants, yes
terday filed demurrer to the complain
in the case. The suit was brought {
few days ago to recover 1000 which TIL
plaintiffs claim is due them as com
mission for selling stock of drugs be
longing to the defendants. The demur
rer says the true name of the ParcheI
D'Acheul Drug company is the "FinEn
Medin Drug company" 1t also say!
that the complaint is ambiguous, unin
telligible and uncertain in severa
respects. Among the grounds stated thu
demurrer says that the complaint al
leges that the corporation, 1.-The Parch
en-D'Acheul Drug company was en-
gagged in business conducting a dru:
store and drug business in the city o
Butte; that it further alleges that tn
stock of goods, wares and merchan
disc, consisting of drugs, medicines ant
such articles or property as pertain t,
the drug business, comprised the stool
of the drug store known as the Parch
end Acheul drug store at 80 Norti
Main street, "of which property all O
the said defendants We're then the own
ers." The demurrer ayers that tn,
complaint is ambiguous because, if thu
words (which property" are construed
to mean the stock of goods, it is con
Trajectory, for the reason that ii con
tains the allegations that the stock O.
goods was the property of the defend
ant corporation, and also that it was the
property of all the defendants. The an.
swer AYERS that the defendants are un
able to decide from the language of the
complaint what was intended in this
statement. 1t further says that the de-
PENDANTS are unable to ascertain from
the complaint whether all or part OF
defendants are alleged to own the drug
store. The complaint is alleged to bt
ambiguous on two or three other kin
dred accounts also, and the same
grounds are repeated three times in or.
der to cover the allegations of unintel-
Eligibility and uncertainty as well as
ambiguity.