The Anaconda standard., 1899-01-22
BEFORE JUDGE CLANCY
The Jurisdiction of Justices of
the Peace.
NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN
Judge clancy's Decision Contrary to
That of Judge Lindsay and Judge
Mediation : Several Ques-
tions Raised.

1 ion on the question of the jurisdiction
OF justices of the peace, which could
| be made of far reaching effect If en-
forced in the county, but as Judge
Lindsay and his predecessor, Judge
Mediation, both had gone exhaustively
into the same question and decided it
just contrary to Judge Clancy, it is
doubtful If the latter's decision will
have much effect unless case, involv-
| ing the same matter should be taken to
| the supreme court and he should he
| sustained, but no exception was taken
to his ruling yesterday. The decision
an effect is that justice of the reace
mad no Jurisdiction outside of his own
| township. The question was raised in
the hearing of the application of J. L,
Leslie for writ of prohibition to pre-
| vent Justice of the Peace Harring .on
from proceeding with the trial Of n
| SUIT brought against him in the justice
| court. 1t being alleged that the cause Ct
| action did not arise in Harrington's
township and that therefore he had no
| jurisdiction in the case. Another uuas-
tion raised was that the PLAINTIFF in
The action against Leslie was a minor
ana therefore had no capacity to cue
Both points were sustained by Judge
| Clancy and the writ of prohibition was
| granted.
| Judge Mediation, several years ago,
decided that not only justices Of the
| peace, but police judges, had jurisdic-
| tion in civil matters co-extensive with
| the county. Judge Lindsay subss-
| quently passed on the same question
and took a similar view and it was
| generally understood that the question
! was settled, but recently a young law
yer named Root came from Missouri
| and the question was raised again in
| one of the first cases he had with the
| result that Judge Mediation and Judge
Lindsay We're yesterday reversed by
Judge Clancy, after hearing brief state
| ments and arguments in the Leslie
| Harrington case.
Judge Clancy yesterday passed on
number of matters which he had had
under advisement for some time. and
| gave a rather important written upin-
| ion in one case, that Of Mary +. Hughes
against Charles4W. Goodale, as guard
| ians of the estate of Francis Arthur
Linforth and Geraldine Linforth, min
ofs. Mr.. Goodale was appointed guard
ian for the children in 1890 and filed
general guardianship bond. In No
vember, 1S93 the court made an lr,ler
| for the sale of some real estate belong
ing to the Linforth children and the
| property was sold to Mrs. HughesSfor
$1,S5O and deed given her. Before
the sale, however, the guardian failed
to give the special sale bond required
by law, and a consequent cloud rests
upon the plaintiffs title to the proper
ty. Judge Clancy decided that Mrs.
Hughes has no legal title to the prop
erty and has an action against the
guardian. In the course Of his opinion,
the court says the law requiring 'tte
filing of a special sale bond is manaa-
m t11n oy.Ito sc ;v,Fo
not directory. The evident intention
Of the legislature was to hold
close edge on the guardians Of infants
and the law should be strictly enforced
AS no title passed by the sale Of the
property the plaintiffs remedy is cn
action against the guardian for money
had and received. The court believes
that the infants still retain all title to
the property they had at the time the
property was sold by their guardian.
At the same time the plaintiff was pre-
sumed to know the law of the state
and to look out for her own interest
and know the kind of title she was
purchasing, and, in the language Of
Judge Cooley, it is not for court to
reach out helping hand to every per-
son who has put himself into a diff
Guilty. but declare the law as the court
finds it, and if it be bad law. let the
lawmakers in power change it. Con-
Guiding, the court says that the fail
ure of the guardian to give the sale
bond makes the sale null and void so
far as the wards of Goodale are cen
cerned, and Mrs. Hughes Is not the
owner of the property as against the
Linforth children and they can bring
suit against the plaintiff for ejectman,.
In the case of R. M. Boyer against
Charlotte Cassidy, motion to luasn
an execution was overruled.
A motion for a change of venue to
Lewis and Clarke county in the case of
]. A. Riddell against the Switzer Brick
& Terra Gotta company. was denied.
In the case of Ella Mccain against
John M. Barber. a motion to strike
from the complaint was sustained end
a demurrer in the case of Alma VII
son against F. Aug HeinZe was over
ruled. a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint in the case of
Louise Anderson against the First Ma
tional bank was overruled. also de-
murrer in the case of Emma L. Ruger
against the Kenyon Connell CONNER
cial company.
Richard E. Dennie, colored. was
granted a divorce from Viola Dennie
on the ground of desertion. The testi-
mony was that the parties We're mar
ried in Chicago in June, 1894, and in
August 1897, while living in Butte, the
defendant left the plaintiff without
cause. Dennie said the only reason he
knew why she left him was because he
could not furnish her with enough
money.
Judge Lindsay yesterday called his
trial calendar and set the following
cases for trial:
Feb. 6. John ]. Chambers VS.. William
Lowry ct al. Feb. 4. Fred B. Pudding |
ton VS.. John O'Rourke ct al; j. Fl. |
Peterson VS.. Charles Carver ct al: l.. !
Rey VS.. Inter Mountain Publishing
company. Feb. s, Montana Union Rail-
way company VS.. Peter Wastl: Mon |
tana Union Railway company VS.. Will
lam Birkett; Peter Debernardi vs. Peter |
Schoensberg. Feb. 9, S. F. Fitchett VS.. |
Silver Bow Meat company ct al; Henry
l.. Haupt vs. f. w. Thomas ct al. Feb.
10, George A. Cobban VS.. Samuel Heck
len: Ralph A. Lewis VS.. James ].
Thomas ct al; James C. Dawkins VS.. |