The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-19
BEFORE JUDGE LINDSAY
Order to Show Cause in the
Hoar-Hennessy Case.
THE APPLICATION DENIED
Defendants Filed Their Answer - The
Suit Involves a Narrow Strip of
Land-A Jury Suggested
by the Court.

The order to show cause in the case
of William T. Hoar against J. B. Hen
messy and Mike Hennessy was heard
by Judge Lindsay yesterday morning
and the plaintiffs application for a re-
straining order denied
The defendants in this case also filed
their answer in the district court yes
terday. The case involves the owner
ship of strip of ground hundred feet
long and little over a foot wide at
one end and less than q foot wide at
the other The strip lies between two
lots, owned by the parties respectively
in the residence quarter on North Mon
tana street. The defendants began to
build a fence upon it a couple Of weeks
ago, and the plaintiff brought suit to
restrain them and to settle the title
Inc answer denies all the allegations of
ownership of the strip made by the
plaintiff in his complaint, and, as a
separate defense and counter claim al
leges that the defendants own the strip
through five years adverse possession
The answer says that the defendants
bought the lot south of the plaintiffs
lot on Jan. 81, 1890, and that its boun-
diaries were marked and staked on Oct.
70, 1890. when the plaintiff went into
possession of the adjoining lot 1t says
further that the defendant. J. B. Hem
messy, pointed out his northern boun-
Diary to the plaintiff and that he had a
verbal agreement with the latter as to
the boundary in 1891; and chat a di-
vision fence was erected on the line
agreed upon and stood upon it till
thrown over by dirt, water and other
materials from the plaintiffs lot,
which came against it, When the fence
Tell recently the defendants erected a
retaining wall with a stone foundation
and wooden superstructure which is
on the same land and not upon the
plaintiffs property. The answer saws
that the plaintiff and defendants at all
times regarded the line of the fence as
marking the dividing boundary Of their
property, and that no dispute ever
arose till the past two weeks: and that
II there is any difference between the
line and the boundary described in the
DEEDS It must be common to all the
property used for dwelling purposes on
North Montana street. The defendants
allege that the plaintiffs claim is estop-
ped and barred and foreclosed by the
statutes and they ask to be dismissed
With their costs.
In the hearing on the order to show
cause yesterday after hearing consid-
cradle testimony, the court stated that,
as it had not been definitely deter
itiiiSH J"9e where TIRE ulFlulng line BE-
tween the property Of the plaintiff ana
defendants is, it doubted very much
whether this was such a case as would
justify the issuance of an injunction
pending the trial Of the case. 1t was
also stated that the fence sought to be
built had been caTapleted, and that the
fact was added as an additional rea-
son why an injunction did not lie
The court also suggested that a iurv
would be called upon to pass on tho
facts, and if it found that the fence
was on the plaintiffs premises. would
assess such damages as had been suf-
fered.