The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-17

envelope was the one in which the let
ter was posted, Young Creek admitting
as much.
Objection overruled.
On cross examinat ton Mr.. Strickfaden
said that he was familiar with Robert
Creeks handwriting. He had receiv-
ed letter from him eight years ago.
You are a brother in-law of the de-
PENDANT, are you not?"
Il would rather that matter be not
brought up
please answer the question:
HE is
What reason would your brother in
law have in addressing you in such
vile language as is contained in the
note to you?"
Because he had no better sense.
He has proved himself in other ways
to have NO sense"
Then. from the fact that you know
that he had no better sense, you con-
cluded that he wrote that letter."
Yes, SIR
Here Mr.. Rodgers interrupted to
warn the witness to pay attention to
the questions.
Where was Bob eight years rso
him? ?"
In Bozeman."
And your
you haven't a friendly feeling to-
ward him?"
No, nor to any one else who has
treated me as he has
Has that fact anything to do with
your conclusion that he wrote the let
ter?''
NO sir"
There is not a friendly feeling ex-
listing between you and a majority of
the Creek family?'
We'll, you can put it that way"
In parenthesis Mr.. Strickfaden gave
Mr.. Thresher to understand that no
other member of the family but he
and Robert had anything to do with
his letter business.
What is the cause of the ill-feeling
existing between you and the Creek
famly?"
Objected to and sustained. Witness
said that he never had any harsh
words with the defendant. In explain
alton of the case as it stands witness
said: about eight years ago the de-
PENDANT took it into his head to rule
the son-in-law. While his mother was
on visit to my home he wrote a let
ter to me, an abusive one, and threat
ened to come to Anaconda most any
time to do me up. No use to men
ton anything else I guess"
Didn't he tell you in that letter that
unless you desisted from abusing his
widowed sister he would see to it that
you did?''
Il believe she figured in the case"
Ihe witness, answering a question as
to the contents of a second letter, start
led the spectators by fatty refusing to
tell who We're present when he die
tated to Nathan the letter to Robert
VINO was present besides Nathan
When you dictated the letter?'' asked
Mr. Thresher.
No, I don't care to answer that
question"
II ask you. Mr.. strickfaden, who
was present besides Nathan
Il don't propose to drag any more
members of my family into this case,
and If you We're gentleman you would
not ask the question and insist upon
dragging others into the case
All right. I'm satisfied if the COM
missioner is" and the commissioner
said nothing.
Witness said that he called at the
postoffice for Bobs reply to Nathan's
letter Later Nathan showed him the
letter, and witness told him that he
to put stop to this bust
ness Then he related his experience
with Bob years ago, when the latter
v ent to Anaconda and into witness
office for the sole purpose of clicking
him. I would not have it that way,
so | just threw him out of the office
There is more coming" said the wit
ness, Five years ago | went to a
'anch near Bozeman where Bob lived
IN the second day l was there with my
,amily, Bob came from the city to me
to do me up. Another brother
If his saw him coming and advised him
% go back and mind his own business:
also told him that if he was going to |
'aise a disturbance he would take a
land in it himself. Finally he per-
;uaded Bob to return to his home and |
lot raise trouble. After nearly five |
'ears had elapsed came this letter
,busing me and my family"
Didn't all of this trouble arise from |
he defendants idea that you had |
lbused his widowed sister,"
Maybe it did. I had about forgotten |
bout the Bozeman rumpus when the |
etter Of recent date came
You often write to other members of |
he family?''
mo, l guess not. I probably wrote
ne letter in seven years, and in it I
idn't refer to Bob or other family mat
ers.''
This concluded the governments case.
Abraham Creek father of the defend
mt, testified. He resides in Bozeman.
lr. Thresher asked him to state the
ause of the enmity existing between
and the defendant An OBJ
ection was sustained, and the witness
vas dismissed. This closed the case,
nd brief arguments of counsel fol-
owed.
Commissioner Wood asked the attor-
eys if they would object to his reserv-
lg his decision until to-day, and being
ssured that no objections existed, the
stated that he would de-
ide the case to-day, saying in conclu-
ion that he was not satisfied on all
oints involved, and that he certainly
id not want to work an injustice on
ne young man.