Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-07-05
LOST MOTION
FOR N0N-SU|T
JUDGE LINDSAY RULES AGAINST
DEFENDANTS IN THE SPEC
ULAToR CASE
EFFORTS TO STRIKE OUT
EVIDENCE ALSO FAILED.
Lyman Harley Note Explained In
Court-Hearsay Evidence Of
Creighton's Agent.

| The motion TOR q nOn.Sull HlduS ny IL
| defense in the suit of Lee Mantle against
| Lulu F. Largely as administrative of the
estate Of p. A. Largely, to recover posses
lator mine was overruled by Judge Lind
say this morning. The motion was mace
and argued on Monday and taken under
rendering the decision Judge Lindsay said:
I'm overruling the motion for a non-sult
in this action it may be well to observe
tanned unless it clearly appears, assuming II
proved all that the evidence offered by the
plaintiff P antirs, tend ns5 ,9 Rf1ve; IS stu, waT Suen e y iudge
ment in the plaintiffs favor IN case no
other evidence was presented. 1t need NOT
finally determined the points raised on the
motion for a non-suit; such matters. will be
subject to consideration in the final deter
mination of the action. may also state
that the court at this time is not clear as
to whether such a claim as is here sued
upon should. have been presented to the
Administrative of the estate before the ac-
ton can be maintained. The motion for a
non-suit is ordered o~verruled."
fr The del defense nyias then t ibsi to oa rave ef stf Hsrs1
Nichols testimony relating to the verbal
declaration Of Largey when the latter told
Nichols proposed lease on the Spectator.
but the judge responded that he had exam
ined the testimony and found nothing
defense called.
m Lyman n Harley .ha fyi,, who Sea at na the sc ommsnc e.
handing Dave Upton. a witness for the
plaintiff, a note stating that the Largeys
would see him on the following day, was
present in response to a citation issued sew
eral days ago. He was first questioned by
Attorney Noon in regard to the note.
Dave UPtonSS asked Noon. "'A
Did you see him last Thursday even
ing?"
give him a note?"
Did you state in tha note thai the
Largeys would see Mr.. Upton tomorrow
I did not use the word 'see.' I said sub
Asked by the judge what he meant by
handing Upton the note, he said he meant
nothing in Particular; that he just handed
He was also questioned as to the cause
that prompted him to the act and he said
he had previously met Bernard Noon, one
corner of Main street and Broadway and
asked him why he did not subpoena Mr..
Upton. Noon, he said. had not said he
veyed. He stated further hat on Friday
he had gone to Bearmouth and had not re-
After being admonished in reference I'd
Interference in such matters in future, he
was excused.
A. Creighton of Omaha, said he had been
In Creighton's employ for nineteen years.
He was shown some Geographic corre-
spondence between Largely and Creighton
in regard to some checks, but an objec-
ton was made on the ground that Creigh-
ton was not a party to the suit. The
checks, it was alleged, had been given for
the purchase of a half interest in the Spec
ulator.
Cross-examined, the witness stated that
other persons besides himself had been
employed in Creighton's office in 1884 and
later. They were G. w. Williams and 8.
L.. Stearn. The first business Creighton
had in Montana was in 1884 and it had con-
tinued up to this time. He admitted that
Largely was Creighton's agent in this state:
admitted that his duty was to simply ex.
anime Largey's accounts and see to it that
they were kept straight SO far as Creigh-
ton was concerned. In regard to the checks
ne said his only means of knowing that
they figured in the Spectator deal was
from what Creighton had told him. Of his
own personal knowledge he would not as
sumo that as much as one cent represented
by the checks or Of the money collected by
Largey for Creighton in this state had
been applied on the purchase of the Spec.
ulator. His knowledge in this line was
purely hearsay. W."