The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-05
AN ANSWER IS FILED
COpartners of ]. P. Hendricks in a
Lease Make General Denial.
HAVE NOT MADE EXPENSES
They Say The Plaintiff Has Not
Been Refused Access to the
Books of the Company
Their Argument.

Edwin F. Bray, Will Madison. John
Hancock. John Nance and Thomas
Waters for a dissolution of partner
ship, accounting, injunction and for the
appointment of a receiver to take
charge of the Wake-Up-Jim mine.
under lease to the parties to the ac-
ton, an answer was filed yesterday by
the defendants. They admit that
two-year lease was obtained on Nov.
10, 1894. and that the partnership at
that time formed was for the purpose
of working the premises under lease
and for no other purposes. They fur
Their admit that the plaintiff and de-
PENDANT We're to share equally in the
expenses. losses and profits. and that
under such agreement they began ope-
rations.
They deny that the lease is now the
property of the plaintiff and defendants
as co-partners and allege that on Nov.
90 1895, the plaintiff severed his con-
nection with the defendants as CO.
partners in the lease and notified them
and their creditors while working un-
der the lease thar he would not be re-
sponsible for any future debts or obli-
cations of any parties to the lease and
notified the defendants that he would
have nothing further to do with the
lease or with the operations of the
property They admit that the lease is
still in full force, but deny that Mr..
Hendricks has any interest in vt. They
also deny that the lease is valuable
one or that the operations under 1t have
ever proved valuable to any one con-
nected with it, and allege that since the
LIST of November. 1895, the defendants
have extracted ores from the mine to
the value OF 81, 059 OF; that the necessary
expenses in working the mine under
he haan e1 e27 Ak leaving
an excess of expenditures. over re-
ceipts. of 57S.47, no part of which has
ever been paid and is now due. In adj
dition TO the above named items of
expense there are sundry outstanding
bills due for supplies which have not
been paid 1t is denied that the de-
PENDANTS have ever taken exclusive
possession of the partnership books or
property and that they have prevented
the plaintiff from having access to
them or from participating in any
manner IN the partnership business,
and allege that ever since October,
1895, the plaintiff has been in posses
sion Of and has retained possession of
all the books of account of the part
nership and has refused to surrender
possession of them to the defendants.
The answer denies that they ignored
the plaintiffs interests in the partner
ship, but says that since Nov. 20 1895,
ne mas ndQ no INTEREST III
ship or property. They also deny that
they have disposed of the ore which has
been mined during the lease and APP
piled the proceeds to their own use or
have failed or refused to account to the
plaintiff for the proceeds of the same
or pay his proportionate share of the
profits, and deny that there ever were
any profits or that any profits have ac-
crued since Nov 20. 1895, belonging to
the plaintiff as a member of the part
nership. The defendants also deny
that they have not employed a suffi
cient force of men to operate the mine
to advantage or that the profits real
ICED have been small by reason of the
defendants failure to employ more
men, OF that by such failure they have
caused a great or any loss to the part
ner:ship or to the plaintiff.
1t is averred that the defendant,
Waters, on or about Nov Is, 1895, made
a proposition to Mr.. Hendricks to con-
tribute 81 900 in money If the plaintiff
would contribute a like amount to be
expended in the employment of men
and the operation of the mine and for
prospecting purposes, and the plaintiff
refused to accept the proposition or to
contribute any money for any purpose.
On an accounting there will not be
found anything to be due the plaintiff,
and 1t is denied that unless restrained
the defendants would unlawfully dis
pose of or lose the profits of the bust
ness or that in order to preserve the
plaintiffs interests in the property and
in order to use and dispose of IL ITO the
best advantage il is necessary that
receiver be appointed to hold and con-
troll the property under the order of
the court. The defendants allege fur
ther that the plaintiff has at all times
since the formation of the partnership
failed and refused to contribute his
proportionate share of the costs and
expenses in excess of the receipts of
the lease
The lease contains the following
clause: ITO enter upon the said prem
ises and commence working thereon
and proceed to work the same within
10 days and thereafter to work the
same in good mine fashion steadily and
continuously. and any failure to per-
form the conditions of the lease will
work a forfeiture of ii and deprive the
defendants all rights and interests
hereunder" wherefore the court Is
asked that the order appointing a re-
ceiver and enjoining the defendants
from operating the mine under the
lease be vacated and set aside and that
the defendants be allowed to resume
work and that they be decreed the own
ers Of the lease and that the plaintiff
be decreed to have no interest therein
A motion to set aside the order ap-
pointing a receiver was also filed and
the matter will be called up Saturday
afternoon before Judge Mediation for
hearing. John w Cotter is the de-
PENDANTS attorney.