Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-08-28
HER FURNITURE
WAS DAMAGED
LANDLADY OF THY BUTLER
HOUSE SUFFERS LOSS BY
CLARK EXCAVATION.
LII
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
IN SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.
In Yesterdays Proceedings Attorney
Kehoe Resented MI. Hodgens,
Reference to Blackmail.

savings bank against Mrs. Cassie Shaw
er, proprietress of the Butler house in
west Broadway, but when the time for
closing the Jays tribulations arrived the
matters IN controversy had been not
more than half finished. This morning
the case was resumed and at it's con-
ciuslon the Judge granted the order TO
SNOW cause that had been directed
against Mrs. Shaver and required the
plaintiff to give a bond of 81, 500 to insure
her against damage.
AT the east side of the Butle house
w. "A. Clark is excavatins for a new five
story block to be used as a printing office
for the Miner. The State Savings bank
owns or controls the Butler house ad-
Joining the premises. Mrs. Shaver .'ses
the Butler property as a lodging house,
and, 1t is alleged, refused to allow the
State Savings bank to enter the place for
the purpose of bracing the east side
against possible disturbance by the ad-
joining excavation. The matter found
its way into court. the bank bringing an
action against Mrs. Shaver to compe her
to loosen uo on her decision to permit no
Intrusion. In the complaint the bank al
legged that Mrs. Shaver was insolvent and
unable to respond in damages. The bank
asked that she be temporarily restrained
from interfering, and the temporary or
dsr was granted. Yesterday the hearing.
usually had =: such cases, to make the
order permanent was commenced, but
prior thereto a motion was maze ny the
defendant to dissolve the temporary or
der. 1t was heard and overruled. Rob
ert Mcbride appeared for the plaintiff
and D.. Fl. Kehoe for the defendant. 7.
NJ. Hodgans, cashier at the bank, testi-
fled that Mrs. Shaver was a tenant from
month to month; that she had been moth
fled of the danger in which the building
was placed by the eXcavating, but she
had demanded $1,000 as an inducement
to allow her to use free of rent the west
half of the building and the east side
after the latter was repaired until such
time as SHE could get her dodgers back
again. He had rendered her no money.
but offered to take care of the furniture.
The wall had been torn down since the
injunction order was granted and the
east side of the building propped up.
Asked by Attorney Kehoe under what
ARRANGEMENT the work had been done. the
witness answered hat it was none of his
business.
1.-THE court may want to know said
Mr.. Kehoe. anyway I don't want to be
insulted by you. / ave a name in the
community as we'll as you--'
stop that" interrupted the judge.
who then requested the witness to answer
the question. But the matter was not
pressed.
II am willing to pay Mrs. Shaver a
reasonable sum-, but I do not propose to
be blackmailed by either you or her. SAID
Mr.. Hodgens.
Attorney Kehoe objected to the lam
guage and the judge told him to keep sill.
Mr.. Hodgens then stated that Mr.. ke-
hoe had asked 81, 900 as a settlement,
which amount Mrs. Shaver had de-
manded
AS a business man do you construe
that as blackmaile' asked Mr.. Kehoe.
.It may sound harsh, but you can tai
it as you see fit replied the witness.
H. NJ. Patterson testified as to the nee
essity of removing the wall for the pro-
lection of the property and was on the
| stand when court adjourned for the lay.
Mr.. Patterson was recalled this morn
ing and asked a question relative to the
supposed damage that would be done the
h,1ilding. That would be largely con-
/; iectural.' said he. IF the building
should be entirely destroyed the damage
would be between $4,000 and $l3,ooo, Dut
present conditions require me to say that
the damage might be from l,5oo to So,ooo'
which estimate is merely pfoblematleal
1t has not been very safe TOT ANYONE ~
oecupy the building since the
hogan. The u~nderpinnlng could v
been nut in without entering the struc-
ture. - -, r
This ended the plaintiffs side. }
A. Riddell. a contractor. testlhed Tor tne
defendant. He said he had been IN
str,,cted by Mr.. Hodgens to examine the
i WALL u LIE poi fooS
what would be necessary to make 1t sa1e
He had made the examination and IN
formed Mr.. Hodgens that 1t would DC
impossible to underpin the wall 50 tha'
the east side of the house would be ten
able. AS to the probable cost of the con
templated work, ne hao maae no es.'
mate.
Mrs. Shaver testified in her own be.
half, She said she owned all of the fur
nishings in the house, and the allegatlo
of the complaint to the effect that sht
was insolvent and unable to respond II
cumbrance on the property, whatever
she aid, every dollar of the amount due
on it having been paid. A short time
ago she had been offered 81, $50 for thu
furniture. By reason Of the blasts an
other work going on in the excavation
the contents of IA rooms had peen oe
stroyed. Mr.. Hodgens, she said, had no
; offered to nav her one cent for damages
You heard Mr.. Hodgens say some
|, thing yesterday about blackmaii,. sal
Attorne Kehoe. us there anything II
that allegation"
.There is not, Mr.. Hodgens asked M
what damages l had sustained by tn
destruction of the rooms and furnitur
and I told him 81. 900. which l consid
cred very small. That was all there wa
to it."
w. G. Henby testified that the furnl
ture of the IA rooms of the east side o
the building had been totally destroyed
The plaintiff attempted to introduc
the testimony of a dealer in second-han
goods to prove the value of he furniture
but an objection was made and sus
tanned, the court holding that the actio
was not one in which either side was at
tempting to recover judgment for dam
ages.
The matter was then argued and tn
decision rendered.
Viavi ParlorA. - New Bee HtvA