The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-07
SURPRISE WAS SPRUNG
Motion for the Dismissal of the
Toms Case.
AGAINST JAMES MURRAY
Toms Was in New Jersey and Was
Unable to Be Present-The Defendant
Objected and the Motion Was
Overruled.

A large sized surprise was sprung by
the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
suit of F. D. Toms against James A.
Murray when the case was called for
trial in Judge Lindsay's court yester-
day afternoon. In the suit the plaintiff
Toms and j. J. Cusick sued to recover
possession of stock in the Pocatello
Water company. The case came on for
trial last Thursday, but the plaintiff
Toms was not in the city and con-
tinuance to yesterday was granted to
enable him to get here. When the case
was called yesterday afternoon, State
Senator Edwin Norris of counsel for the
plaintiffs arose and stated that since
the continuance was granted he had
received a telegram from Toms stating
that he was unable to come to Mon
tana at this time. He had wired back
that it was absolutely necessary or the
case would be dismissed. In reply he
had received message stating Toms
was detained by case before the SUI
preme court of New Jersey and could
not come. Mr.. Norris said that counsel
for the plaintiffs were in the position
Of being deserted by their chief client;
as he could see no good reason for the
desertion he would be compelled to
move for the dismissal of the case.
Some surprise was manifested at this
announcement and Attorney Cotter OF
| counsel for the defendant was on his
| feet in moment to object to the dis
| missal. He said the defendant had filed
a cross bill and he asked that the case
proceed to trial under the cross COM
| plant.
Judge Lindsay SO ordered and James
| A. Murray was sworn, but before his
| examination was begun Mr.. Cotter read
| the complaint and the cross bill in the
case.
The complaint, as read, set forth that
| in 1891 the plaintiffs associated them
selves together to organize a company
| to supply water for the city of Poca-
| tello, Idaho.
On jan 8, 1892, the company was or
| ganized and 1000 shares of stock were
| issued at par value of $25 each. Upon
the organization of the company, the
plaintiffs transferred to the company
| certain water rights and received there
for 1870 shares of stock. In July, 1892,
the defendant Murray demanded 1900
shares of stock for money he had ad-
vanced the company, offering to re-
turn the stock when the moneys he had
advanced were repaid Later more
money was required and the defendant
violated his contract by refusing to
furnish the money unless the plaintiff
Toms resigned from the presidency of
the company. This was refused and
later on representations made to them
by the defendant, the men in the COM
pany's employ threatened to hang
Toms. Toms finally yielded and 2,170
shares of stock were transferred to
Murray under the agreement that he
would turn it back whenever the money
he advanced was paid back.
oil
verified the proceeds of the company to
his own use and as stakeholder. re-
fused to allow bonds to be issued to
raise money to pay him.
In the cross bill the defendant, Muir
ray, denied that he demanded the
transfer of any stock or that he owned
more than 3,5251a shares or that there
was more than 3,543h shares outstand-
ing. He denied that he converted the
proceeds of the company to his own
use, but alleged that they had been de-
voted to the benefit of the company.
He denies that Toms ever asked that
the company be bonded for the purpose
of paying him, the defendant, off, but
alleged that Cusick did and that he
agreed to it. Further the defendant
alleged that he had paid out over
$100, 600 in excess of the revenues of the
company and he asked for an account
ing and that the stock in his possession
be foreclosed on and sold to satisfy his
claim.
At the conclusion of the reading, At
torney Mediation moved for judgment
against the plaintiffs on the complaint
and on defendants answer and that the
case then proceed to trial under the
counter claim.
Attorney Evans opposed the motion,
but it was granted and Judgment or
dered in conformity with the mo-
ton.
Judge Lindsay at this time stated
that he did not care to enter into a
long accounting which could be had
before referee, owing to the press of
business. 1t was accordingly decided
to take proof relative to the defendants
contract with the plaintiffs and refer
the accounting to referee. The after
noon was occupied with the examina-
ton of Mr.. Murray and he was still on
the stand when court adjourned to this
morning.