The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-28
STATE SUPREME COURT
Defense Granted Time In Well
come DisbarmentP Proceedings.
THREE DECISIONS GIVEN
This Silver Bow Case OF Cobban Against
Kinds Remanded - Commissioners
Have the Power to r Paw of
Dsputy County Attorneys.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

to-day granted the defense in the Well
come disbarment proceedings until next
Monday to file their brief, summing
Up their side of the case. r. E. Cor
bett, one of the Welcome attorneys,
IN asking the court for an extension of
time, said that Mr.. Nolan had filed
his brief sooner than expected. not
awaiting himself of the seven days
allowance by the court. Seven days
from the time he filed his brief would
be next Wednesday. The counsel for
the. defense, he said. had other mat
tiers to attend to, and would like to
have until next Monday to file their
brief The court granted the request
Tine court rendered three decisions to-
DAY and disposed of some motions
IN an opinion by Justice Piggot, the
COURT reversed and remanded .he case
Kinds, county treasurer Of Silver Bow
county. appealed from the district
court Of Silver Bow. When Kinds was
treasurer, Cobban commenced suit
against him to prevent his selling for
taxes certain town lots in Butte upon
which the taxes from 1890 to 1896 were
delinquent. Cobban, in his complaint
before the lower court, set up that the
taxes were void because the tracts OF
land and city lots were not separately
assessed or valued, but were assessed
In gross with other lots, which neither
he nor his predecessor in interest were
Interested: That for each year from
1890 to 1896 the property was assessed
to others than the true owners, and
that neither he nor his predecessors III
interest had opportunity to contest the
assessment or notice to pay taxes, and
that the notice of sale had not been in
conformity with the statutes Of 1850.
He applied for an injunction to pre-
vent the sale of the property The
county treasurer demurred to the COM
plant. The lower court cyerruled, en-
tering judgment for Cobban and per-
petually enjoining Kinds from selling
the property. The treasurer appealed.
In reviewing the lower court, the
supreme court holds. that the conten
tion az Cpbban that the assessment
was yoid becanse made unon seveSa,
narcels If land without senarata ex-
rianation az each lot is ,1ntenahle. that
IN law nrasnmed +h.t he knew Ia
ought to have known the time and
niana wher tbe cnnntv hoard az eo,1aI-
IT, t,on VIA ~ ,,aat;,1s 80, ~. ,.,,,-
go - i, ~, - ~ - nv ~
aass ~ go .as ii.a fn;i aoout
,,sssaase - CIV ~ nasln5 ,ao go; van
~ - 'ns op oI,n 1919 ~ S;lr.t 49,
-
u, II Haii ~ ~" .ps. -, 10
at ne.u .nat .ns point ehat me a.
sessments are Vold because Ineh lan6s
were we're nsAeu pE sins asssssoIa ~ pSFsoiAs
olner tHan y IL II owl HI ny wen iaR-
~, because the x statuIes3 IA asIoEce az
.ne llme tne assessments were mace
pTovlaed tnat any MISTAKES OF the ma
tAre complained OF would not lnvaI-
date the assessment. 1t was lastly
held that the 1rregularlty consisting OF
g. three weeks notice OF sale OF see
property for delinquent taxes instead
OF four weeks notice has not the et-
feet Of rendering the taxes illegal or
unauthorized by law.
There is nothing in this case suffi-
cient to warrant the granting of the
equitable remedy of injunction against
the intended SALE said the court. The
remedy at law is plain and adequate
for the redress of the plaintiffs al
legged grievances"
County attorneys and county COM
missioners will be interested in an opn-
ion prepared BY Justice Hunt dealing
with the question of the pay of deputy
county attorneys. Lewis Penwell, dep
uty of Lewis and Clarke county, COM
menced an action here in the district
court to compel the county commits
sioners to pay him $3.50 per month in
stead Of $125. The lower court decided
against him and he appealed. The SUI
pTGInG court dlllf1NS tue IullNS III lue
lower court, holding that the statutes
rive the board power to determine the
number of deputies to be allowed coun-
ty attorneys in counties of the first
and second classes, and to determine
their compensation within the maxi
mum limits prescribed by the political
code, and that the contention Of the |
plaintiff that his salary as chief depu-
" county attorney was fixed at s1.s00 |
per annum because the words not to
exceed were omitted from the statute |
In relation to deputy county attorneys, |
could not be sustained. After review
ing the contentious raised by the re-
spective counsel upon the argument of |
the case, the court says in conclusion, |
as to the powers of the board to make |
the salary what it sees fit:
I'VE are strengthened in this opinion |
by a policy pervading the statutes |
which generally gives to the board OF |
county commissioners power to control |
the number and compensation of dep |
uty county Offices The legislature has
selected such boards as the best fitted |
TO guard the economic interests Of the