The Anaconda standard., 1899-12-13

for $4,000. The plaintiff alleges in the
reply that the defendant demanded all
the lease money for a 10 months term.
The plaintiff asks that the defendant
be required to perform the contract be-
tween them in conformity to the speci-
fications, so far as it can be performed
at this time, and that the amount of
lease money due the defendant for the
balance of the term be credited to the
plaintiff as an offset for the damages
that he alleges he has sustained on
account of the defendants failure to
perform his contract.
The inventory of the public admin
is strator in the estate of Edward Har-
rigan, deceased, was filed in the dis
trict court yesterday. The instrument
states that the estate consists of
s260.50. The administrator received
S10.50 of this from the st. James hos
pital and $3.50 from Marcus Daly's
bank.
The public administrator yesterday
sold a quarter interest in the Merri-
mack lode claim and a quarter interest
in the Lizzie K. lode claim, belonging
to the estate of Michael Cowley, de-
ceased, at public auction. The first
property was sold to e. A. Sherman for
s135 and the second to ]. K. Aeggett
for $3.50. The Lizzie x. mining claim
is located on the hill near the Wild
Bill, north of the Gray Rock.
The city of Butte has appealed the
case of Michael E. Holland against the
city of Butte. The notice of appeal
was filed in the district court yester-
day. The judgment appealed from was
rendered in the district court on March
rs, 1899. The city of Butte has also ap-
pealed the case of William ODonnell
ct al. against the city of Butte and the
notice of appeal in this case was filed
yesterday also. The judgment appeal
ed from in this case was given on Dec.
Ii, 1899.
In the case of Adolphus Busch
against E. A Sherman eft al, the plain
tiff yesterday filed in the district court
a motion for judgment on the plead
ings. In this case the plaintiff sued for
two lots in the Central addition of
Butte and in the motion he alleges that
the defendants sold all their interest
in the lots in question and that they
disclaim ownership of the same in their
answer Wherefore the plaintiff asks
that Judgment on the pleadings be rem
dered in his favor, and that the defend
ants be forever debarred from assert
my any title to the lots.
The Butte Consolidated Mining COM
| pany yesterday filed complaint in the
| district court against Louis Frank and
| Charles B. Lonensen to recover posses
| sion of the Bordeaux mining claim, S5ou
| damages and costs of the suit The
| complaint alleges that the plaintiff
| owns the Bordeaux claim and that the
! defendants entered upon and took pos
| session of it on Nov. last. 1t also
co tho SafanI9ntS mining on the
| claim and in mining the claim have
| damaged the plaintiff in the sum sue6
| for. The plaintiff further alleges thai
! the defendants have refused to surren'
| der possession of the premises and tha'
! unless restrained will continue to min'
| the claim to the defendants further
| damage There is no adequate remedy
at law against the defendants and il
order to avoid multiplicity of suits
| the plaintiff asks for temporary re-
straining order and a permanent in
junction as further relief. A restrain
| ing order returnable on Jan has beel
issued An affidavit undertaking anc
| order to show cause were hled alons
| with the complaint
In Judge Lindsays department of th
| district court the following cases wer'
dismissed as settled yesterday: j. W
Lacey against John Butler ct al, Mos
| BeSSett against A. Rlcnarus.
The case of L. collars against Z
Gilmer was continued for trial to DE
| cember 20, 1899, and the following case
were continued until this morning
John Guerin VS.. Dick Sutton ct al
| John Yank VS.. Fred Hutchinson, Ton.
! Williams VS.. Montana Meat company
In the case of John O'Rourke agains
| Mary Schultz, a motion was made b.
the defendant for judgment on tn
pleadings: it being argued and take
| under advisement. The motion was q
| follows:
First-That the complaint herein an
the amendments thereto fail to state
cause of action against the defendan
| Second-That the complaint an
amendments thereto, with the matte
therein sought to be litigated hereil
might have been litigated and were III
igated in prior suit, entitled Mai
Schultz against John O'Rourke, nun
bersd 4,497 upon the register of action
OF this court.
Third-That said complaint an
amendments thereto fail to allege an
fact or facts showing any fraud on tn
part of the defendant or any fact c
facts emitting the plaintiff to the II
lief prayed for or to any relief.
Fourth-That the statement of tn
counsel to the jury shows that the
seek to litigate in this action matter
and things that were litigated in
prior action between the same partie
and counsel wholly fail to state an
facts which they could or would be er
titled to litigate in this action.