The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-03-21

than the state statutes allow. unless
some special exception is to be found
exempting the inhabitants of such city
from the operation of the general stat
ute. None such affecting Butte is
known to us. however. so we must re-
gard the ordinance of that city, pleaded
by defendants, which permits $50
pounds of powder to be kept at one
time by company in Its warehouse
within the limits of that city as incon-
sistent with the state law, without force
and immaterial to the case before us.
The corporation therefore, by maintain
ing this nuisance, became the subjest
of Indictment for misdemeanor, as well
as liable in civil action for injury to
person or property caused by the nuis-
ance. These propositions are too plain
for extended comment. They demon
strate a liability to this plaintiff, as
suming always the evidence is uncon-
tradicted.''
Referring to the question of reason
able care that should be exercised by
all corporations handling explosives
the court says:
This reasonable care appears not to
have been exercised in this case, where
the corporation, by its trustees. per-
mitted a public nuisance to be created
and to be continued, whereby. as a con-
sequence of the act of permitting it, a
third person, not in fault, has been
killed" In conclusion the court finds
the case must be reversed.
AS to defense of inaction or ig-
norance the court says: "As a mat
ter of defense it is proper to show all
facts by which the jury can say whether
the inaction or ignorance relied on is a
sufficient excuse for wrongdoing. But
we have no hesitation in saying that
upon statement of facts like that be-
fore us, no execution which resulted in
the positive act of a creation and main
tenance of a continuing nuisance, on
account of which the third person was
killed amounts, unless explained. to mis-
feasance upon the part of all the direc-
tors of the company, except as to Ken
yon, who, it appears prima facfe, must
have actually known of and authorized
the nuisance. AS to him it is malfeas-
ance.'
! Four other opinions We're hands d
| down. A new trial was granted to
Richard r. Sloan, convicted in Gallatin
county of murder in the second degree
in killing his fatherin-law, W. B. Rus
| sell. They had a row in a saloon in
Bozemon on, July 49, 1898, because
Sloan's wife had left him to return to
her father. Sloan shot his father-in-
| law after the latter had struck him in
the face. Russell died in few hours
| anu oiodi W dS dIIeSlbu, tlletl, SpHNlclttl
| of murder in the second degree and
sentenced to Is years. In an opinion by
Chief Justice Brantly, the lower court is
! reversed because of errors in the in
| structions.
| John r. Miller VS.. A. B. Gates, Gates,
| Townsend & Co. and the Mutual Rene-
| fit Life Insurance company-This ac-
| tion was begun by Miller to set aside a
/ decree Of foreclosure of a mortgage of
| a lS fo ha iY,SJ o,r
company for a loan upon piece sof
/ Helena property. Miller obtained a
| judgment against Gates for $3199.41 for
| for money loaned after the foreclosure
proceedings on the $4,000 mortgage. He
| desires the decree set aside, and the
| mortgage declared null and void, so as
| to permit him to realize on his judg-
| ment. The ground on which he bases
| his action is the fact that the insurance
company had not complied with the
| laws Of this state at the time the mort
gage was made in regard to filing an
| nual statements, and that therefore all
contracts made by it are void. Judg-
| ment was rendered for the defendants
in the district court. Plaintiff appealed
| The judgment is affirmed in per cur
lam opinion, holding that the question
| involved was disposed of in Insurance
| company VS.. Whine. 20 Montana 20.
Fred Sweetman VS.. John NJ. Ramsey
| This action was commenced by plaintiff
to recover 3.400 sheep seized by Ramsey,
| as sheriff of Yellowstone county, under
| an execution in favor of the First Ma
| tional bank of Billings. The jury found
| for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
| Justice Pigott, for the court, reversed
| the judgment and remanded the cause
| for new trial.
In an opinion by Justice Pigott the
court dismissed the appeal Of the plaint-
| III in the case Of Rochel E. Creek VS..
Bozeman Water Works because of am
biguity in the matter of the appeal
| bond, it not being clearly shown which
| of several orders of the lower court was
| appealed from.
David NJ. Reynolds of Troy, Mont,
was admitted to practice to-day upon
a motion by the attorney general. He
| formerly practiced in the state of Iowa
4 The Bill Adopted.
| Calcutta. March 20-The legiSla tive
| council to-day adopted the countervailing
! sugar bill.