The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-04

claimed. was not in accordance with
the code provisions. In dtsposing of
that contention, the court says:
1T is not needful to decide WHISTLER
without the defendants consent, but
in the exercise of a wise and sound dis
erection, the court may send to the
jury exhibits other than papers. On
the hearing of the motion for a new
trial it was a sharp conflict between
witnesses with respect to whether or
not the defendant consented to the
sending of the skull, hat and sack to
the jury during their retirement. The
county attorney and a juror testified
that just before the jury retired the
counsel for defendant consented and
agreed in the presence of the defendant
| and in open court that the exhibits
mentioned might be taken to the jury
| room, and the juror further testified
| that as soon as the jury discovered that
| the said exhibits had not ben brought
| into the room. they directed the bailiff
| in charge to get them, but defendant
and his counsel testified that neither of
| them consented or agreed to the taking
| of these exhibits to the jury room. The
! presumption is that the tI'ial court 10
| which was addressed the application
| for a new trial found against the de-
| PENDANT upon the issue thus presented,
and, there being a substantial conflict
| in the testimony, this court must in
| dulge the conclusive presumption that
the decision is supported by the weight
of the evidence; hence We have no
right to disturb it's action unless there
was error in sending the exhibits to the
jury, even with the consent of the de-
PENDANT. We are of the opinion that
consent given by the attorney for the
defendant in the presence of the Ue-
PENDANT was the consent of the defend
ant himself, and that such consent was
l = Id hn
motion for a new trial, to the sending
of the exhibits to the jury, while in re-
| tirement, and eliminates the question
| whether error might well be urged had
| consent not been given"
Another case decided was that of
| Dowty VS.. Pittwood, appealed from the
| district court of Cascade county. DoWty
! and Pittwood ran on the democratic
and republican tickets, respectively, for
| the office of alderman for the first ward
| of Great Falls, at a city election held
| April 3 of this year. Pittwood was de-
| clared elected. Dowty then commenced
| proceedings to contest the election of
Pittwood on the ground that he had not
! been a resident CT the ward for one
| year preceding the election. The dis
| trict court found for Dowty. Pittwood
appealed. Pittwood's position was that
| section 1853 of the political code, which
provides that no person shall be eligible
| to the office of alderman unless he has
| resided at least one year in the ward
SO electing him, is void, because it is
| an act amending a section of an act
that had already been repealed. Pitt
wood commended that the Legislative as
sembly repealed section 1865 of the COM
piled statutes relating to the qualili-
cations of aldermen by section 4,753 of
the political code, ten days prtor to
the enactment of section 4,57S, and that
this latter section 4753 is void because
.SF
act already repealed The supreme
court, in an opinion by Justice Hunt,
holds against the contention of appel
liant and at1irms the lower court.
The court dismissed the case of the
City of Butte VS.. Frank Call. Call was
found guilty in the police court of Butte
of violation of ordinance No. All in re-
iation to the payment of licenses, in
| that he ran a hack without paying a Ii
| cense. He was fined IS. He appealed
| to the district court, where he again
was found guilty. He then appealed
| to the supreme court, which disposed
! of the case in these words:
| 1.-The record contains no copy of the
notice of appeal given, as provided by
| section 2,287 of the penal code. This
court is therefore without jurisdiction
to review any question presented there
| in. This appeal is therefore dismissed"
| j. H. Bramlett ct al. VS.. John J. Flick
and I. M Rockefeller was another ap-
peal decided This was a contest over
| a mining property in which the plain
| tiffs sought to recover possession from
| the defendants of "a portion of the sur
| face ground of the Black Tail lode
| claim situated in Flathead county. The
| trial resulted in a verdict for the plain
tiffs. Defendants appeal from an order
| everything defendants motions for
! new trial. The supreme court in a very
long opinion written by Chief Justice
| Brantley reverses the lower court for
| errors committed in the instructions.
| The appeal in the case of MuzZy VS..
| Dedrfckson from Cascade county was
| dismissed because of the failure to file
transcript.
The case of the State VS.. Brooks, APP
| pealed from Yellowstone county, was
| argued before the court this morning.
| Broobs was convicted of uxorcide.
| Coad VS.. Lambert, appealed from
Broadwater county, was argued this
| afternoon.