Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-12-13
A DEAL IN STOCK
Being Strengthened Out In the
District Court.
THE M'CORD TROUBLES
Were Only ShOrt-Lived-- Maintenance
Suit Brought by His Wife
Dismissed.

IN the SUIT of John oRoufke against
Mary Schultz. an action involving $500,
Judge Lindsay today overruled the mo-
ton made by the defendant yesterday
for Judgment on the pleadings n the
trial of the case was resumed.
Several years g Mrs. Schultz sold
to Mr.. O'Rourke s., 500 worth of stock in
the Northwestern Brick & Supply COM
pany, but the stock was not delivered or
the money paid. Mrs. Schulz sued Mr..
O'Rourke to recover Judgment for the
amount. The case was tried in Judge
Clancy's court and she secured judg-
ment. but ORourke carried the matter
to the supreme court. He maintained
that Mrs. ehult never delivered him
the stock and did not have 1t to deliver,
and in conformity with a decision of the
supreme body in the matter brought the
suit now on trial to prevent Mrs. Schultz
from satisfying an execution for the
amount. his contention being that in
stead of Mrs. Schultz owning the stock
it was owned by her sister. Fanny Metu-
sevitZ.
Bert Farlin was the first witness. but
his testimony related solely to the off
cial documentary part of the transaction.
He was followed by j. r. +. COR, sec
rotary of the brick wno tes-
titled that he had used I'll. stock oertifi-
cate book of the company for the purpose
of transferring to DR.. Schultz some
shares belonging to e. d. I.eclaire.
The plaintiff testified in his own be-
half. He said he knew T.. d. Leclaire.
A. A. Lisker, DR.. Carl schultz, Mary
Schultz and Fanny Matusevitz, all of
whom We're concerned in the deal. When
fhA 1nJotonn1- u-nc tiVrt fo.,,. ~
stakeholder in il. On one occasion he
had an agreement with Mr.. Liskar and
DR.. schultz in regard to some stock held
by Leclaire in the company. They did
not want Leclaire in the and
the agreement vas tina: they should buy
his delinquent stock and each take a
third. The meeting at which the agree
ment was reached was held in the office
of DR.. Schultz, in the Ped Boot store,
and Mrs. Schultz sat near the partiei-
pants and heard the conversation They
We're to carry the amount which was
$500. on a note until they could get
around to the settlement of it, and each
one was to sign the note at the First
National bank. as Leclaire owed the
bank. The witness said that at the
meeting he had said, in order to make
the deal legal, there should be two bids
on the stock, and in case Leclaire was
there he, witness was to oNerbid him ir
order TO get him out. Several bids haC
been made. They all objected to LIE
claire's presence in the company because
he was not conducting the hasiness &C.
cording to their ideas of right. After thu
agreement was made. I4isner, Schult:
and witness had gOile 10 Nh. Forhis
office and secured the services Of ". j
Naughten as auctiOneer. i-iSkef nas
made the first bid and Schultz the sec
ond, and the stock had gon to the latter
They had then gone to the bank am
signed the note.
Mr.. O'Rourke further said Fam,
Metusevitz had admitted to him that sh
owned the stock: that If Mr.. Schult
owned It and delivered it to him h
would pay for it-he was prepared to per
form his part of the deal at any time.
On cross-eXamination Mr.. O'Rourk
said he had never paid any of the note
but had understood that DR.. Schultz ha,
lifted it. He had been sued for tn
whole amount at one time.
rs it not a fact that you We're sued o.
a portion of it, asked Attorney Howell
Yes, sir. but l was also sued for til
whole amoun in another suit. The,
tried to out it all onto me-
Can you say how this money was col
lected from DIR. Schultz by the First Ma
tional bank?'
No l was in California at the time.
Did YOU ever tender DIR. Schultz an.
: money in payment for your share of tn
stock""
No; told him I would pay it. NJ.
word was good. | asked him to divid
the stock, but he did not comply. In 1S9
Mrs. Schultz told me in j.. O.. Bender,