The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1909-11-16
MON ]ANA= COURTS
ARE AFFIRMED
INTERESTING MINE HOLDINGS
TON or SUPREME COURT.

Washington. y. G.. Nov. 1s.-The
supreme court has dismissed for want
OF jurisdiction" the motion far ii writ
~ error made - it by Levi If. Strong
1t AL i'm the case If Adam Gassert,
involving mining holdings In the Butte
district In dismissing the motion
chief Justice Fuller said no federal
question was involved which might
warrant the court To deciar. the Mon
taua court To have been in error In its
decision. which was 10 The. Eject that
Strong had unlawfnry obtathed Gas
s.srts Sf0n.Gn4 interest III TIRE Berlin
group If. mines in SiIver..np county
In consideration nj $4,000 which Cas-
sert had borrowed from Strong.
The case is an interesting one. Be
teses=n 1901 and 1904 Gas=ert borrowed
ST. 1u0 from Strong and executed mort
cages upon some holdings .he had In
the Berlin Mining and Development
company and TIL. North Butte Mining
company deposited in the First Ma
tioual bank of Butte, as security fnr
the loans. Gassert having II quar-
tar interest i'm the Berlin group
Of mines in Silver Bow county. 1t
seems as though Levi NJ. Morgan and
Maud Bond strong SO imposed upon
Gassert's ignorance as to have the
Mortgage convey this interest in the
Ierlin groCp as n security for prior
and future loans. Gass.rts holdings
in the mines Were valued mt 100000.
which was in bonds. and which Strong
ana his friends obtained through the
alleged conveyance on the strength Of
the $4,000 loan.
Gassert took the case tn the Butte
district court in the 1906 term. aliog-
ing that tn. Strongs bad entered into
Il conspiracy To ,isfraud him out of his
interest in the Butte properly. During
the litigation l.. NJ. Strong moved to
Amsterdam, y. Y. In the trial of the
ease Gasaert claimed that there was no
lease or mortgage entered into between
him and Strong involving his interest
in the Butte properties. but that he
had given as security for the loan
mortgage on certain other property In
Park county. Montana.
Drink Made Him Crazy.
4 II was pointed out that Gassert was
a drinking man and was encouraged
in This way by the Strongs. Levi NJ
Strong being his confidential agent in
business matters. Gassert because of
lack Of EDUCATION and unfamiliarity
with business being ignorant of such
transactions. Gassert's attorney. NJ. c
keegin. argued that these conditions
were taken advantage of by the
Strongs to get his 100000 shares In
the Berlin mines. The Montana dis.
trict court decided in favor Of Gas
sert, holding that there was "A con-
spiraey against him on the part of
the Strongs by which they had OBJ
tanned his quarter interest in the Rcr-
lin Development and Mining company
10 turn over the shares Of stock which
were rropet'ls@ Gasserts property.
The strongs took an appeal In the
Montana supreme court. which. how
ever affirmed the judgment of the
district court. In January 1899. the
suprem. court Of Montana refused To
grant rahearing of the case. where
upon petition WIS made Ia tn. United
States supreme court by counsel for
the Strongs M :. Gum. IRA 7. Wight
and Charles +. Pew for the granting
of writ offcrror and Il review of the
case before the highest court in the
land, The supreme court declined To
issue the writ. and thus the ipdgmsn,
nf the Montana courts holding that
Gassert MAS huncoed out nf his mining
holdings stands