The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-06-17
IN BuTTE's TWO COURTS
William Booth Convicted o.
Assault in the Second Degree.
He STRUCK OSCAR PAUL
Suit in Which Judge Lindsay Held the
Action Was Barred by the Statute
of Limitations-Import Liti-
ton Begun Yesterday.

William Booth, a youth of IS, was
tried in Judge Clancy's court yesterday
on the charge of assault in the first de-
gree, but the jury convicted him of as
sault in the second degree and left his
punishment to be fixed by the court.
The facts of the case, as brought out
by the evidence, We're that at abQRt
o'clock on the morning of April 80
Booth and another young fellow named
Oscar Paul We're playing a game Of
pool in Fitschen's saloon on South Main
street. Each had won a game and then
they played the saw-off and 81 a side.
A dispute arose over the claim of Paul
that he had made point and he took
down his money and quit the game.
Hot words followed and Paul told
Booth to come out in the alley anu
settle it," and started for the door him
self. Just as he reached the door Paul
turned around and Booth struck him
over the head with the heavy end of a
billiard cut and knocked him cold.
Paul was removed to the hospital,
where. on examination, it was found
that he had a depressed fracture OF
the skull just over the right ear. An
operation was performed and the
broken skull raised. For three weeks
| Paul lowered between life and death
and then began to improve and is now
almost recovered, though he is partially
paralyzed on the left side.
| Booth claimed that he acted in self
defense and said he thought Paul was
going to assault him when he turned
back after reaching the door. The jury
was out about four hours before reach
ing verdict The case was prosecuted
Chief
Deputy Kelly and the defendant was
represented by John B. McClernan and
W. j. Naughten.
In the case of N. j. Bielenberg & Co.
| against John Cooley, on trial in
Judge Lindsay's court yesterday, the
interesting question was raised by
counsel for defendant as to whether
the 'co-partnership should not first COM
ply with the law relative 70 filing
certificate and publishing the same,
showing the names of the members OF
the firm before it could maintain the
suit. The partnership was formed in
1888 and dissolved in 1894, the dissolu-
ton taking place about year before
the law with regard to partnerships
doing business under fictitious name
vas passed. The suit was to recover on
an account for meats sold before the
year 1894 and not since the law took
effect. The court held that it could
hardly be considered as the intention
of the legislature to require a co-part-
nership which had gone out of and
| closed UP it's mercantile business long
prior to the passage of the act to COM
| ply with the provisions thereof with
| reference to filing and publishing the
| notice required by the civil code before
| it shall be permitted to maintain an
action in court to collect an indebted
EGG ar Jr1t-. 1Gy1cr t,rin to mt
| ment of the statute. A plea in abate
ment had been interposed and was
cverruled. Afterwards the court held
that the action was barred by the stat
ute of limitations, as it had not been
commenced within the time by law re-
CURED. and ordered judgment in favor
of the defendant.
Joseph A. Coram yesterday brought
| suit in the district court against An
drew j. Davis and Charles H. Palmer
for s25, 714.32 belonging to heirs of the
Davis estate and assigned to him.
Coram, in his complaint, relates the
facts about the will compromise by
which the disputed document was adj
mitted to probate and the different
heirs shared in the estate. 1t was
agreed and provided in the contract
that out of the estate there should be
| distributed to the two defendants, as
trustees, one-eiesentn ana Inat they
should Immediately turn it over to
Henry A. Root Sarah Maria Cum
mings, Elizabeth S. Ladd, Mary Louise
Dunbar and Ellen S. Cornue In Au-
gust, 1897. by consent of all parties, the
court made an order for the distribu-
| ton of 100000 of the estate, and, ac-
cording to contract. the defendants, as
| trustees, received one-eleventh of that
sum, or 100000, of which they paid
tn
mings, the amount due them. The de-
PENDANTS were ready to turn the bal
ance of SOFIA 80 over to Ladd and
Dunbar but there was no person pres
ent duly qualified to receive and re-
ceipt for it. but they agreed and prom
Used that they would turn it over at
any time upon the request of Mrs. Ladd
ana Mrs. Dunbar. Subsequently, re-
| lying upon the promise of the defend
| ants, Coram purchased the rights and
interests of Mrs. Ladd and Mrs. Dun
| bar in the Davis estate, including the
| S25, 71432 in the hands of the defend
ants, and made demand on the latter
for it, but they refused to pay it over
| to him and he demands Judgment
| against them for the amount with in
| terest from Nov. 25, 1885,
| The money in controversy is under
| attachment in a suit of Root against
| Ladd and Dunbar.
The following matters are set for
| hearing in Judge Lindsay's court this
| afternoon:
Estate of Edward Shields, petition
for letters; estate of Angus Mcleod,
| petition for letters; estate of Rice
| minors, settlement of account and pc
| tition to invest funds: estate of w. G.
| Cole, petition for probate of will: es-
| tate of Largely minors, petition for let
| tiers: estate of j. p. Gallagher, settle
| ment of account and petition for dis
| tribution; estate of William Harris. re-
| turn on citation; estate of p. A. Largey,
| petition for partial distributions es-
| tate of Edward Reveille,. insane, order
| to show cause: estate of Frank SWEET
ger, petition to set aside estate. John
| l.. Carlson VS.. Gerda Carlson, plaintiff S
| proofs, Eide Kirknold VS.. o. c. kirk
mold, plaintiffs proofs; Jessie Maher VS..
William Maher, plaintiffs proofs: Amy
d Silversmith Consolidated Mining Co.
VS.. Joseph Annear ct al. order to show
cause; state eX rel S. J. REYNOLDS VS..