The Anaconda standard., 1899-12-09
are excused. Mr.. Rowe" said Judge
Lindsay, and the incident closed.

The reply to the separate answer of
w. A. Clark in the suit of Fred White
side against the Miner Publishing com
pany, corporation, W. A. Clark, Alex
ander j. Johnston. A. H. Wethey and
Harry c. Sultzer. was filed in the dis
trict court yesterday. The plaintiff,
Fred Whiteside, denies, on information
and belief. that the defendant did not
have the control or determination or
supervision as to what matters should
be published or printed in the Butte
Miner. He says that he has no knowl-
edge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to whether the defendant,
W. A. Clark. had no knowledge or in
formation of the publication of the
words admitted in the answer to have
been published in the Butte Miner but
he AYERS, with reference thereto, that
in the exercise of due care and caution
and due supervision over the business
and affairs of the said Miner Publish
ing company, as trustee and director
thereof, the said defendant ought to
have known and would have known
that the said words, or others equally
libelous, were to be published in the
said paper He Denies on information
and belief. that the defendant. w. A.
Clark, did not have the control or de-
termination or supervision as to what
matters should be published or printed
in the Butte Miner He says that he
has no knowledge or information suffi-
cient to form a belief as to whether
the defendant, W. A. Clark. had TO
knowledge or information of the publi-
cation of the words admitted in the
answer to have been published in the
Butte Miner until after the same had
been printed and published, but he
AYERS. with reference thereto. that in
the exercise of due care and caution
and supervision over the business af-
eosx ~ = 1;-l,
pany, as a trustee and director there
of, the said defendant ought to have
known and would have known that the
said words, or others equally libelous.
We're to be published in the paper.
Whiteside further denies. with the
same qualification. every allegation
contained in paragraph IS on page of
the defendants answer.
Nearly every day there is a divorce
suit or so brought here. Yesterday
elena Josephine Williams sued Lewis
A. Williams for divorce. Mrs. Will
Jams says in her complaint that Will
Jams deserted her in 1898, and still viii
fully continues to desert and abandon
her, and she asks a divorce on the
grounds of desertion. She says she IS
in INDECENT circumstances, and asks
the custody of their one child, August
Odeal Williams. The couple were mar
fleQ at Bultt Oh tliS .lSl tietS VI
ary. 1897, about year before the de-
sertion.
On account of the fact that the Hes
perus cases consumed the week Judge
Lindsay found it necessary to rear
range the trial calendar, and the same
is now arranged as follows:
Dec. 11-John O'Rourke VS.. Mary
Schultz.
Dec. 12--John Guerin vs.. Dick Sutton
ct al: John Yank VS.. Fred Hutchin-
son: Tony Williams VS.. Montana Meat
company.
Dec. 13-John Martin VS.. L. J. High
land ct al: Butte General Electric
company VS. Imperial Amusement
company: Mrs. Celia Dawson vs..
James Dougherty: Lee Mantle VS.. Lulu
F. Largey as administra triX.
Dec. 1.-THE ice Klaffki company VS..
Bernard Shanahan: Peter McCabe VS..
Mike Fleming: Elizabeth Boyer VS..
James McNabb.
Dec. 15-George w. Vineyard VS..
John Esty; H. r. Vrooman VS.. d. l..
Toomey ct al; Mrs. r. Skillkorn VS..
John Whalen. .-.
Dec. 16-Kellogg Plumbing and Man.