Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-11-28
NOVEL SUIT.
NOW ON TRIAL
DEFENDANTS ALLEGED TO HAVE
FOUND A PURSE CONTAINING
MONEY AND JEWELS.
THEY PICKED 1T UP
ON THE ROADSIDE
Petition Filed to Discharge Thomas
Mclaughlin as Receiver for the
Nipper Mine-Other Matters

IICIt 10 d Vel Colih5 NA'S H"'
on trial in Judge Clancy's department
Of the district court; that is, it is inter-
esting to many because of the novelty
of the foundation for the prosecution and
the fact that the defendants are two
women who occupy positions on the east
crosscut of the 200-foot level of Butte,
taking Park street as the NORTH uivi ling
line.
The title of the cause is tn. state
against Jean Carleton and Vi%tln Long.
! charged with having found, In a public
road south Of the city, on the 18th Of
last March, "a purse containing dia-
monds. jewe.ry and cash of a total value
of 1878. the property of Mrs. Margaret
Hughes. Under the statutes e Montana
the finding of anything Of mora than $50
value in the manner described, and a re-
flsal to return it to the owner, is
termed grand larceny, and one so ac-
cused can be prosecuted undei all of the
dips, sDurs and angles of u first degree
LARCENY charge.
j. L. Wines is looking after thu inter-
ests of the defense, and the following
jurymen will decide the guilt ~ inno-
cence of The accused:
Thomas Wilcox, James Martin, j. v.
Johnson, Peter Cordett, Samuel Shovel,
Charles Merryfield,, John f. Sullivan.
Charles Beley. Philip Pryor, John H.
Bishop, James Whalen and George
Tuckett.
On the 18th of March Mrs. Margaret
Hughes, Mrs. Shea. and three children
started in a buggy to the nursery on the
fiat below town. Just before starting
Mrs. Hughes gave her purse to one of
the children to take care of. En- route
to the nursery the purse was lost fr n,
the buggy. The defendants Ware in a
phaeton behind the Hughes party. On
reaching the nursery the loss of the
purse and it's contents was discovered
and the party started back over the road
in search of it. On the way Mrs. Hughes
asked a woman whom she bet 4 che
had seen any one pick UP the purse.
The woman added in the affirmative.
adding that she had seen two women
in a phaeton stop, and one ha. alighted
and picked it up. The description OF
the women tailed with that of Carleton
and Long. Mrs. Hughes drove after
them and caught UP with them, but the
women denied all knowledge of the
purse. Mrs. Long told Mrs. Hughes she
hoped she would find her jewels.
Mrs. Hughes was the first witness for
the state. She detailed the loss of the
purse and the efforts she had made to
recover it. She said further that she
had seen the defendants driving along
behind her own vehicle, her attention
having been attracted to them by their
conduct-they We're laughing loudly.
There was also a buggy with two men
IN 1t rolling along the road close to her
rig. Mrs. Hughes did not know at what
point in the road the purse was lost.
Her direct and cross-exarnination con-
suned the entire morning.
AN INTERESTING DOCUMENT,
The Parrot Mining mpa as de-
PENDANT in the suit brought by Michael
"A. Hickey and others to determine title
TO the NlDDer mine vein, has filed in
court a motion to discharge Thomas Nc
as receiver for the property,
Inc motion is based principally upon the
operation OF the property during August.
The company says in the document thai
Mclaughlin is not Indifferent or disin-
terested as between the parties litisant
in this cause; that he is an agent OF The
owners and leSSees of the Ninoer claim
and Is acting as superintendent for them
and conducting their mining operations
in the -$ipper: that his operations ar.
not confined to the part OF the property
o'ei aHiti Ht NdS appointed receiver,
but in the whole of the claim: that dur
ing all Of the time he has been acting as
such receiver he has been either debtor
or creditor of one or more of the parties
plaintiff in the action; thai he has sent
al ore extracted to the Montana Ore
Purchasing company's smelter without
e~ndeavoring to makes as favorable or bet
ter arrangements with other smeIters.
that the NJ. o. p. Co. is a CORPORATION
of which +. A. and A. 2. HeinZe, two
of the Plaintiffs, are officers and stock
holders and who own most of the stock,
and that Mclaughlin is virtually deliv-
ering all ores to them; that he has
bought supplies from them without try
ing to make as good or better terms else
where.
The company further states that III
this case and in the cases of the Parrot
company VS.. +. A. Heinze Ell al. and the
Parrot VS.. a. p. HeinZa, the same ques-
ton is practically presented-to--lt:
whether the apex of the vein in contro-
versy traverses the Nipper lode substan-
TALLY parallel with it's side lines or
whether these veins depart from the side
lines.
The company ia in the document
that the statements purporting to be dc-
counts of McLaughlin's receivership are
of his operations over the
whole of the Nipper claim; that the So
called statements filed by Mclaughlin
contain false accounts; that by his
g.. ----& -~.-lA - ---S-.