The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-15
WHO IS THE COMPANY
Another Injunction Proceeding Against
the HeinzeS by King.
ORE IS BEING EXTRACTED
And the Plaintiff Is Trying to Put
His Finger on the Man Who Is
the Cause of All His Trouble
on the Mountain Chief.
ORE is BEING EXTRACTED

Another injunction proceeding of ST.
las F. King against the Montana Ore
Purchasing company was heard yes
terday afternoon by Judge Mediation
The action was brought to restrain the
company from working the Mountain
Chief mine during the tendency of the
partition suit. One injunction case
against the company, F. Aug. Heinze
and Arthur p. Heinze, was heard a
week ago. but Attorney John Forbis,
who represented Arthur p. Heinze
asked to have the case removed to the
United States court because his client
is a resident of New York. Judge Nc
Hatton granted the injunction in spite
of the petition for removal, and as the
case would be taken to the United
states court anyway and involves
some questions that may be decided
against the plaintiff, Mr.. Scallon
brought another injunction suit against
the Montana Ore Purchasing company
on which the question of removal could
not be raised. 1t has always been
question as to who was responsible or
who was working the Mountain Chief
and other mines operated ostensibly by
the Montana Ore Purchasing COM
pany and the hearing yesterday was
devoted mostly to establishing that
point.
The company's bookkeeper was sub
poenaed as a witness for Mr.. King,
and through him il was attempted to
determine what the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company is and who is run
ming it. The bookkeeper could not tell
who were the trustees Or incorporators
of the company and he did not know
just exactly what connection F. Aug.
Heinze had with the company except
q
he had always been under the impress
sion that the Mountain Chief was the
property of F. Aug. and Arthur p.
Heinze, but all checks were issued in
the name of the Montana Ore Purchas-
ing company and all business In con-
nection with the Mountain Chief was
carried on in the company's name,
though a separate account was kept
for the mine.
A bookkeeper for the Kenyon-Con-
nell Commercial company testified that
supplies furnished for the Mountain
Chief were charged to the Montana
Ore Purchasing company and bills rem
dered the company, and no objections
were offered. Other witnesses testified
to supplies and repairs furnished for
the mine which We're paid for by the
company.
Alex j. Johnston of Clark Bros
bank, testified that the company issued
some of the checks which other wit
nesses had testified to and the checks
were exhibited. Some were signed IF
Aug. Heinze, general manager" and
others John McGinnis, manager"
John Gillie was called as a witness
to testify as to some surveys made of
the mining claim, but the defense OBJ
jected on the ground that the proper
legal notice of intention for permission
to make the surveys and examinations
had not been served on the defendant
company.
The court suggested that a cotenant
had a right to go on the property with
out the necessity Of a notice on the
other party.
There is no question of cotenancy
here" said Mr.. Forbis, for we deny
the ownership of the mine"
Then, / don't see that you are in a
position to object" said the court
land it is a question If you should be
served with a notice or that one is
needed"
The difficulty was avoided by Mr.
Scallon deciding not to question the
witness concerning his examinations
of the mining claim. He. however. tes-
titled that he found a man of the Mon
tana Ore Purchasing company in
charge of the mine and that permission
of Manager McGinnis was needed to
gain admission to II. Several other
witnesses testified to show that the
company, and not the Heinzes indiv-
idually, had been working the mine
John McGinnis, for the defense, de-
MED that the company owned any in
terest in the Mountain Chief or that
the company was working the mine ex-
cept as agent for the Heinzes The
property, he said stood in the name
of Arthur p. Heinze of New York. In
the arguments Mr.. Forbis said he had
several reasons to urge against the is
suance of the injunction. one was that
the company did not like to be en-
joined from doing that which II was
not doing. The company, he said.
might be paying the miners in the
Mountain Chief and might be keeping
the accounts. but the denial that the
company was operating the property
was uncontradicted. The evidence
showed, he said. that II was A. p.
Heinze of New York who was operat-
ing the mine and he could easily be
reached by process of court
This man in New York can easily
avoid the Injunction" said Mr.. Scallon.
FOR he could come into court and pro-
duce the company's pay roll and ac-
counts and show that ne is not one
rating the mine. The Montana ore
Purchasing company is getting our ore
and Is working II. and the ore Is being
shipped to the company and the pre-
sumption is that the company Is ope-
rating the property. The claim that
the company is not doing it is the
merest sham"
Judge Mediation took the matter
under advisement.
We offer a prize of a house and lot
In good location TO any man. woman or