The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-09
CONTRACT IS INVALID
Judge Lindsay Makes an Impor.
tant Ruling in Mining Case.
DOCUMENT NOT ADMITTED
Case Involved q 81 900 Bonus Alleged
to Be Due on a Contingent Contract.
Judgment Granted for Costs
Of Suit.

The question as to the legality Of a
contract to pay bonus was passed
upon by Judge Lindsay yesterday and a
decision rendered adverse to the valid
ity Of such an agreement. The case
was that in which Harry Melville sued
Charles Nickel and wife, Jacob Graft
| and Adolph Moldenhaur to recover
$1,000 alleged to be due him on a con-
tract in which Nickel, for the Ruby
Mining company, agreed to pay him a
bonus aside from his wages in a certain
eventuality.
In the suit the plaintiff sued to re-
cover $1,000 as a bonus on a contract
entered into with the defendants on
Aug. 20, 1890, the complaint alleging
that at the time mentioned the defend
ants owned the Ruby mine in jefferson
county and hired the plaintiff to run a
tunnel on the property, he to receive
80 per day for his services and if he
should strike a body Of ore of the value
OF 100000 he should receive a bonus of
$1,000. The complaint further alleged
that such an ore body was encountered
BY the plaintiff and that later the de-
PENDANTS LEASED the mine to M. L. Hew-
Gold Mountain Mining company, which
took out more than s250,O0D from the ore
body the plaintiff discovered. Attor-
| Eey William q. Carroll appeared for the
plaintiff and the defendants We're dsp-
resented by Attorneys ". III. Dewitt
| and ]. X. Mcdonald.
The case went on trial yesterday fore
noon and considerable more time was
consumed in securing a jury than 1t
took to dispose of the case. as the
court ruled the alleged contract out
under an objection of the attorney for
| the defendants and the case came to
an abrupt end During the proceed
| ings an interesting passage between
counsel occurred, in the efforts of Mr..
| Carroll to get the contract before the
| court
| After jury has been secured, Harry
Melville, the plaintiff was called to the
| stand. He stated that he went TO work
| in the Ruby mine for the defendants in
1889. In 1890 he entered into contract
with Charles Nickel relative to working
the Ruby. A written document was
shown the witness and identified as
the written contract. When the docu-
ment was offered in evidence counsel
for the defendants objected to its adj
mission on the ground that it's terms
We're too uncertain to warrant it's en-
forcement and that it contained no
consideration on the part of the plain
tiff and no evidence of mutually After
extended argument the objection was
sustained and the witness was excused.
Charles H. Nickel. one of the defend
ants, was next called and asked il he
had ever seen the instrument in ques-
ton. An objection was sustained and
the witness was next asked IL he had
power of attorney in 1890 from his wife
and other members of the Ruby COM
pany to act for them in the manage
ment of the Ruby mine. This was also
objected to. Mr.. Carroll then asked who
composed the organization Of the Ruby
company in 1890 and an objection on
the ground OF irrelevancy was sustain
ed. At this time Judge Dewitt offered
an objection to any further testimony
being introduced. as the contract on
which the case hinged, had been thrown
out. The objection was sustained and
Mr. Carroll then moved to dismiss the
case. Judge Dewitt objected and ask
ed for judgment for costs.
The jury was SO instructed.
Butte Optical company, eye special
lists and manllfa ctllring OpticianS roOrr g