Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1903-10-21
SEVERAL BIG
CASES TRIED
District Court Rapidly oisposIns Of
Civil Cases Set for TriaI-James
Raw Wins Water Suit.
SCHULTZ TRIAL UP TOMORROW
Most Interesting Case on the Criminal
0oeket-Nature Of States Case
is Unknown.

The district court has been grind
ing steadily since the last issue OF
the Argus and some Of the longest
cases on the docket have been dispos-
ed of.
The latter part of the week was de-
voted TO the hearing of the water right
case of Richard Raw Ss. James Raw.
The jury brought in their findings
Friday morning. They were general
Iy in favor of the defendant, James
Raw. In brief the findings were that
plaintiff Richard Raw did APP
propriate any of the waters OF Twin
springs and that defendant James
Raw never appropriated any of the
waters for irrigation purposes, but
that on the second day of July, 1882,
he appropriated the greater part oil
the waters for domestic purposes on
ly. Defendant James Raw, however,
did not appropriate any waste water
for irrigatng purposes. The jury fur
Their found that plaintiff Richard Raw
was not injured in 1901 by any wrong
full Withholding of water by defend.
ant James Raw, and that neither was
James Raw injured by any wrongful
Withholding of water by Richard Raw.
BY consent of the counsel for both
sides in the ease OF j. w. Coin VS..
Frank Moshner, the defendant has 30
days in addition TO the statutory time
in which to prepare, serve and file
statement on motion for a new trial.
Friday afternoon the case of Mary
Shaules VS.. William A. 'Shaules,
wherein the plaintiff sued for a divis.
ion of property, was taken up. There
was much testimony to be heard and
the Ease did not go to the jury until
Saturday afternoon. The jury brought
in findings giving the plaintiff, Mary
Shaules, $40 a month and the use OF
the house which she at present occu-
pies in this city.
In the east of StromDerg, Mullins
& Co. VS.. S. Bryant, judgment by de-.
fault for $476.42 was entered.
On Monday the court allowed the
county attorney to subpoena two ex-
ira witnesses in the Ease of state VS..
Magallon: also granted the county at
torney leave to subpoena three extra
witnesses in the case OF state VS..
Schultz.
The case of Max Mass VS.. r. L.
Hamilton, wherein Mass sued for
s199, alleged to be due in wages, was
taken up Monday and occupied the
entire day, including an evening ses-
sion. The jury brought in a verdict
for Mass for $105.
In the case of Mat Tus VS.. Pete Tus
attorney Pennock for plaintiff and Won
| Tobel for defendant Informed the
court that they had agreed upon
terms.
Yesterday the case of Stromberg.
Mullins & Co. VS.. Lanahan was up for
hearing and occupied the greater part
of the day. The plaintiff alleged that
Lanahan was a partner in the firm oil
Kahoe & Mahon. who formerly own
ed a saloon in Utica. and was suing
him for 1888. The jury decided in ia
vor of the defendant.
The case of De Witt VS.. Schultz is
being tried today and it is thought
that tomorrow the ase of the state
of Montana VS.. Schultz will come on
for trial. 1t will be remembered that
Schultz is under arrest for stealing
some of the product Of the mill of the
Gold Reef Mining company of Gilt
Edge. This will be n of the most
interesting cases of the entire term,
as each side is represented by an able
array of attorneys. The state has
kept very mum" about the nature
of the testimony to be introduced
against Schultz and no one knows
what NAV be brought out.