Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-05-02
COSTS NOT TO BE RELAXED.
Knowles Overrules Motion in
Chinese Boycott Case.

The Chinese boycott case had another
brief hearing before Judge Knowles to-
day. The matter came UP on a motion
filed by Attorney George A. Clark for
Robert E. Taylor, one of the defendants,
to set aside the taxation of costs in the
Chinese boycott case, which amounted
to about 81. $50. The matter was argued
by Attorney Clark and Attorney l.. u.
Sanders, the latter counsel for the Chi
nese.
Mr.. Clark stated to the court that the
application to tax the costs had been
made on March 20. during his absence
from the city. He objected to the X
ton on several grounds, one of which
was the right of adverse counsel to be
heard. There was no provision in the
law. he said. by which the master-in-
chancery had the right to make a charge
of $50 per day unless the court had here
tofore made an order to such an effect.
This $40 per diem seemed to him to be
eXorbitant. Under the code of Civil Pro-
cedure of the state referees were only al
lowed IS per day.
Another objection of Mr.. Clark was
based on the fact that the complainants
had examined some 40 witnesses. ana
had encountered the records with I'M
necessary testimony. forty of these wit
nesses had been examined to prove, that
wagons with banners inscribed Boycott
the Chinese" had been carried about the
streets. This was unnecessary. Mr..
Clark said. as it had not been denied.
The Interior object of the whole thing, he
said. was to make a lengthy record. to
form the basis for making a demand for
indemnity upon the United States gov
for injury to Chinese residents.
Mr.. Clark said hat only one of the re-
spondents was solvent and able to pay
the costs, and that one was his client,
MI. Taylor of the G. O. D. laundry.
Attorney Sanders in reply stated that
the matter of costs could not now be re-
opened. There vas no unnecessary or
prolix testimony. 1t was necessary that
several witnesses De called to testify to
the fact that boycott banners had been
hauled through the streets.
Judge Knowles overruled the motion,
and in doing so said that in the matter
of retaXing the costs on account of the
alleged unnecessary evidence given at
the hearing, the defendants would have
to come into court and state what por-
ton of this testimony was immaterial.
The mere appearance of one witness to
prove that notices to boycott the Chinese
had been circulated would not nave been
sufficient to give the court authority to
| issue an injunction. 1t would have to be
shown what influence these notices had
upon the public and this could not be
done by one or two witnesses.
Relative to the master charge or S2U
per day, Judge Knowles said that it was
not an excessive charge when the fact
that the master was an attorney, had
been a district judge. and also chief JUS
tice of the state, "a taken into consid-
GRAFTON.
Why, you would charge a client not
less thar that yourself, Mr.. Clark" said
the judge.
Il might. your honor, but the client
might also make an objection replied
the attorney.
Continuing, the judge said that the
case was not a very agreeable one. He
a read some of the testimony in the
papers. There was much cOntradictior
and dispute. witnesses were going out
and coming back and recasting their tes'
timOny,