Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1904-12-21
COURT TERM
IS FINISHED
famous Barnes Versus Johns Case
Decided And Johns Goes Out
Of Business.
MINING CASES SETTLED OUTSIDE
Parties Get Together on Riser Versus
Stuart And Long cases-other
News Of The Term.

The work of the district court is
finished for this term and the jury
was discharged Monday by Judge
Cheadle. The term has been a long
and tiresome one to Judge, attorneys
and jury and all concerned are glad
That they can escape. Many night
sessions were held and some hard
cases were disposed of.
The case of Dewitt versus Morase
came up for trial last week and was
decided in favor Of the defendant.
This is an old case and n which has
occupied the attention Of the judge
and a jury before. The suit was
brought on a mote for Sl,4S9.20 alleged
to have been signed by Paul Morase
and his wife Martha in 1893. 1t bore
interest at the rate Of 10 per cent. Mrs.
Morase, now Mrs. shields. denied all
knowledge of the nole and said she
never signed It. She cannot write
and it was alleged that she put her
mark to the instrument. This case
came up once before and on default
judgement was given 10 the plaintiff.
The judge afterwards set aside the
default and judgement and the plain
tiff appealed to the supreme court
against this decision. The supreme
court set aside the appeal on the
grounds that the transcript did aot
contain a copy of the bill of except.
ions. The case went TO trial last week
and resulted in a verdict for the de-
PENDANT. Huntoon, Worden e. Smith
appeared for the plaintiff and Rudolf
Won Tobel for the defendant.
The case of Barnes versus Johns
was settled at this term of court. Mr..
Barnes bringing suit for possession
of the plant and for damages for its
detention. Mr.. Johns admitted the
detention and so there was no issue
on the possession but the fight came
on the matter Of damages. Mr.. Barnes
claimed $1,000 damages. besides rent
Tor the building. The jury gave him
s2I5 rent at the rate of $50 per month
Tor five and one half months and
allowed him $40 damages for natural
deterioration Of the plant. Mr.. Johns
is now out of the newspaper business
here and there will be only one dem
ocratic paper in the city. Just what
he will do Is a question he has not
yet decided. There is talk of Mr.
Barnes appealing the case but this
will probably not be done.
In The case OF Perry versus Slater
for conversion the jury gave the yer
dict for Mr.. Slater. This was a cas-,
where the Judith Hardware compan!
brought an attachment suit againsr
A. w. Pierce and the sheriff acting
on the writ of attachment levied on &
freight outfit. Z. Perry, the plaintiff
in this action. put in a claim hal tht
outfit had been transferred to hin
before the attachment was brought
The defendants attorneys alleged
that this transfer vas merely a bin,
10 defraud creditors. The jury fount
tor the defendant.
The mining cases of Riser versus
Stuart ct al and Riser versus Lon,
ct al were settled out of court. Thu
defendants we're about TO patent /;
claim in the North Moccasin Mining
district and the plaintiff filed an ali
verse claim in the land office ant
then within he statutory time brough
an action in the district court. Befor'
the cases came TO trial the attorney
and parties got together and compro
missed the matter, so that Riser wa
satisfied. The judgment was thei
given to the defendants and they ar,
now at liberty to patent the claims
Blackford and T. j. Walsh of Helen'
represented the defendants and Rudol
Won Tobel and NJ. S. Gum, OF Helena
appeared for the plaintiff.
New, cases filed with the clerk o
the court are:
Judith Hardware company versa
Peet Tus. Attachment. Frank Z
Smith appears for The plaintiff col
poration.
Mary Wander. Administrative of til
estate of Joseph Wander, deceased
versus William b. SHELTON. Attach
ment. Huntoon. Worden d SmltI
appear for the plaintiff.
Mamie MCGEE versus Thomas No
Gee. Divorce. The complaint set
up that the plaintiff and defendan
i|ntermarried October 18th. 1893 an
that they have lived together sine
then. Extreme and repeated cruelt
Is alleged and also that the defend
ant has been continually drunk for
long time. Non.support is also Sc
up by the plaintiff. She prays fU
temporary alimony of $50 a mont
and for The custody of the two chi
dIen. She also presents an affidavit
that she is too poor 10 pay filing fee
and costs and asks for an injunction
TO prevent he defendant from dispos
ing of property pending the SETTLE
4 AW.AV