The Anaconda standard., 1899-09-16
MOTION WAS 0VERRULED
Argument for q New Trial in the
Czaromah Lode Case.
HEARD BY JUDGE SMITH
He Expressed the Belief That Charles F.
Craddick Gave False Evidence at
the Trial of the Case.
Charges Conspiracy.

Judge Henry c. Smith of Helena sit
ting for Judge Lindsay yesterday, heard
arguments on a motion for a new trial
in the case of Charles f. Dickerman VS.
Charles F. Craddick and Alphonse NJ
Desseault, suit to the right of posses
sion of the Czaromah lode claim. which
was tried before Judge Smith in Feb
ruary and decided in favor of the plain-
tiff. Attorney M. d. Leehey appeared
for the plaintiff and Attorney Charles
O'Donnel for the defendants. At the
conclusion of the arguments the motion
was overruled.
| The findings of fact which were hand
| ed down by Judge Smith on March 2,
| but for some reason We're never made
| public, contain some sensational find
ings, as the court gives expression to a
belief that one of the defendants
Charles F. Craddick. gave false evil
dence in testifying at the trial of the
case and asserts the further belief that
Craddick's relatives. George w. and
William l.. Farlin, conspired with Grad
dick to defraud the creditors of William
l.. Farin and the plaintiff, Dckerman.
After reviewing the case, Judge Smith
says. with reference to Craddck and
the Farlins
The court further finds, from the
manner in which he testified upon the
trial of this case and from his demeanOr
while testifying and the character of
his testimony herein. that the said de-
fendant Craddick is unworthy of credit:
that his testimony to the effect that his
entry upon said premises in controversy
and his joint possession of the same
with the said Farlins was with intent
IN him to claim and hold the same as
his own against his uncles. the Farlins,
and against all other persons. is not en-
titled to credit; that the entry upon the
said premises by the said defendant
Craddick was not made under any
claim of right or title to the same prem
ises, or in any hostility TO the legal title
of the said Farlins, but was subservient
and in subordination thereto and that
the occupancy of the said premises by
the said Craddick was without intent
in him to claim the same as his own
and was with the knowledge and i'm
piled consent of the said George w.
Farlin and his successor in interest,
William L. Farlin, who during all of
said period. were in the joint possession
of said tract with the said Craddick
that the possession of the said Grad
dick was not exclusive, open, notorious,
visible or continuous and therefore was
not adverse to such legal title: that the
said Craddick and the said Farins con-
spired together to defeat and defraud
the creditors of the said William l..
Farlin. and particularly this plaintiff,
by claiming for the said .Craddick the
premises in controversy after the legal
title thereto had passed to the plaintiff
herein" '' mi.
Judge Smith passed on a number of
probate matters which were submit
ted
Yesterday was the day set for the be-
ginning of the second trial of G. r.
Shadwell for the murder of Martin
O'Connor, but owing to Judge Clancy
being engaged in the Pennsylvania case
a postponement was made necessary.
Deputy County Attorney Roy S. Alley
was present at the opening of court and
called Judge Clancys attention to the
setting. indicating the necessity of a
continuance. Judge Clancy remarked
that he had expected to get through
with the mining case by Christmas or
New Year, but from the present aspect
of affairs there was no certainty of It.
Seriously, he said, a continuance was
obviously necessary and reset the case
for Nov. Is.
Attorney Thresher. Shadwells coun-
sci. asked that his client be admitted to
bail in view of the fact that he had
been in Jail nearly two years. but Judge
Clancy said he thought from the evil
dence at the former trial that the case
was an unbailable one and the request
was denied.