Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-04-08
SHORT LIVED
DALYCOuNTY
Continued from Page One).

morality of the transactions between the
PARTIES which led up to the suit.
Murray sued Haldorn for the balance
on note for S.. 1873, on which 81, 900 had
been paid. Haldorn set up counter
claims for legal services and obtained
judgment for $5,4S6.3o. Motion for a new
trial was denied and nappeal was taken
principally on the ground Of error in
granting a motion to strike out certain
larts of Murrays reply to Haldorn's an
swer. The stricken passages alleged
there was a secret agreement by which
Haldorn was to collect only half the fees
allowed him by the court in foreclosure
suits where Murray bought in property.
H ldorn alleges that though he made
such an agreement. it was lin utter dis
regard of all ethics, immoral and against
public policy
On this, the supreme court says:
Without undertaking to pass upon the
question Of whether or not the defense ser
up by the plaintiff to counterclaim is
immoral it is manifest that the court
erred in striking out these portions of re-
pliration. If the alleged contract was
void because it was immoral, then it was
void as to all parties. including Haldorn."
The court holds that if it was immoral,
Murray had the right to allege it: if not,
he had the right to set up the defense he
did. For this reason the judgment is re-
versed.
Another counter claim was for 81 900 for
assisting Murray in procuring a royalty
on the output from the lessees of the
Estela mine. According to Haldorn ;
story, this assistance consisted in his 60
ing one Sunday morning to the side door
of the bank, where Murray was in COM
pay with the five Cornishmen who had
the lease and saying to Murray: "Well, it
has got to be settled today, because it
| won't wait any longer This remark led
the Cornishmen to believe that other men
wanted the property, and although the
lease provided for no royalty. they paid
Murray $4,000 or $40, 900 which he after
wards showed Haldorn on the steamer o.,
| the way to Alaska.
| Haldorn admits it was simply bluff
and he is not proud of it, but thinks he
is entitled to some compensation for it
We cannot refrain from suggesting
| that the district court. upon retrial OF
| this case, take into consideration the
| question of whether, contemplating AL
moral law and principle it should per-
nit the recovery of 81 900, or any other
| sum, for the performance or SUCH an act
of bluff as shown in the testimony o!
| defendant. wherein he at least had the
grace to say I am not a bit proud of it
but at the same time l did it, his act
being, as the defendant testified, simply
bold bluff, a play to bluff these men ou
of royalty" -.
A new trial was denied in the case OF
the Chicago Title and Trust company
against James j. OMAR, sheriff o
Meagher county, and others. A verde
was given the plaintiff for $14,s25.25 les
5000 due defendants. but on motion fol
new trial the court ordered plaintiff t.
remit $1,595.55 of the amount and ther
| denied new trial. Appeal was taker
from the judgment as modified, it beins
| held that the district court should have
| submitted the whole case to the jury
again without using it's own discretion
in reducing the amount of judgment
The appeal of Silas r. King in the cas-,
of James H. Maloney VS.. King ct al ir
relation to the Silver King and Plymouth
contest was dismissed.