Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1902-02-19

hlIH anu Ntlt oiluhNNh ph q hhihihb
claim called the Log Pile" lode.
where he had skidded them this year.
The witness stated that there were
twenty-five logs on the skidway, which
was located on a small gulch which
ian out of Deal gulch, and had been
cut about three years. He stated that
he saw Anderson load the logs and
later saw them on the sleighs as they
passed down the road a short distance
from the Deal ranch.
On being cross-examined he said
that he located the Log rile lode on
the LIST of January, 1902, and that the
stakes were all set according to law.
The logs, he stated, averaged about
two feet through and were from four
teen to sixteen feet long and he valued
them at from theree to five dollars
apiece. He stated that the tracks In
the new snow showed that Anderson
had taken the logs from the skidway
and that the tracks made by Ander-
sons two sleighs were the only tracks
in the vicinity of the pile Of logs which
showed by the marks in the snow and
pieces of bark that the logs had been
removed from the top.
c. +. Smith and Chas. Whipple cor.
rCborated the testimony given by r.
l.. Hamilton. with the exception of a
few discrepancies in regard to the dis.
lance of the main road from the Deal
ranch and Whipple said that he heard
Hamilton tell Anderson to quit haul.
ing away his logs. to which Anderson
replied that he had two hundred logs
az home and he would get two hundred
more.
After some immaterial testimony
by Mr.. Dayie and p. l.. Vigeant. who
are employed by Mr.. Hamilton. II.
ven Tobel, as counsel for the defense.
moved that the case be dismissed on
the grounds that no proof had been
Produced to show that complainant
owned the logs in question and stated
that the action was the result of a
conspiracy.
County Attorney Belden objected
vigorously to the motion for dismissal
and stated that the testimony offered
by the prosecution was clear on the
charge in question.
Justice Mcfarland overruled the
motion for dismissal.
Carl Anderson. on being placed on
the stand, said. in substance. that the
logs he hauled were cut by himself on
the morning of the Sth of February
and skidded close to where the pile
OF logs which vas claimed by Hamil-
ton was situated. He stated that he
did not take any logs from off the
Hamilton pile at all. The witness
further said that he had met Hamil-
ton on his way to the woods. who told
him that If he took any of his logs he
would make him pay for them.
Axtell Anderso n corroborated the
testimony of the defendant, as did
also Oliver Hobarton. who said that
he skidded the logs. which were green
and freshly cut.
A. T. Harvey was here called by the
defense and stated that he owned the
ground which was claimed by Hamil
ton and had placed il on record as
the Doce lode in 1891. He further
stated that he had never given anyone
permission to haul any logs away, and
that r. +. Hamilton had no legal right
to the claim whatever for the past two
years.
Il. +. Hamilton was placed OF the
stand and stated that after seeing An
derson come past the Deal ranch with
the logs he had gone to the skidway
and found the tracks where the teams
had been loaded; he said he had OBJ
served the logs andcould identify them
anywhere. This statement was ques-
toned by Won Tobel and there ensued
Il slight discussion between the com,
~plainant and the counsel for the de-
tense as to each others aptitude for
twisting the truth.
o. w. Belden. for the prosecution.
summed up the evidence and sat down
in favor of Mr.. Won Tobel, who, in a
flight of imprisoned oratory. BELT
tied the testimony of the state and
stated that Mr.. Hamilton was ready
t. swear to anything that was neces-
sary and denounced the matter as a
trumped up case. and said that the
only testimony offered for the prose.
cution was the so-called testimony OF
r. +. Hamilton. which was as worth.
less as the judge says has coal stove
IL and ought to be kicked out of court
Mr.. Belden here rose and tried To
explain that his view Of the testimony
was somewhat different from Mr.. Won
Tobel's. but the court said that there
was no use in drawing the matter out
and ordered that the defendant be dis
missed. owing to the lack of evidence
Fine Job printing done at this office