The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-19
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Attorney Was Unable to Find
Another Constantine.
Mr.. HElNZE ON THE STAND
He Told All About His Trouble With
INSTRUMENTATION He Left He
Took All the Maps and
Survey Notes.

The suit of the Montana Ore Purchasing
company against c. q. Batterman and
others was on trial before Judge Lindsay
all day yesterday. The forenoon was TIA
ken up in completing the jury. The expe-
rience wish Juror Constantine the day be-
fore. when 1t was admitted by him that
he had been offered a lease IL he could
get on the jury. opened the eyes of the at
E~torneys and every other juror was put
through "A rigid examination. Mr.. Forbis
asked each one IL he had been asked to sit
he would vote. but there evidently was
not another Constantine on the jury. The
attorneys had some discussion as to the
competency of Michael A. Hickey to sit
on the case. He owns an interest In the
Nipher lode claim. which he said was un-
der lease and bond to the Montana Ore
Purchasing company. Mr.. Forbis chal-
lenged Hickey on statutory grounds, Ii
being evident that the relation of the
landlord and tenant and creditor and debt
or existed between the juror and the
plaintiff.
MIR. Mediation said he could show by
proof that the facts were that no such
relationship existed between the parties
at all. He was permitted to do so, and
he introduced evidence that the lease
and bond was executed by Hickeys
brother to a man named Owen. and that
the latter assigned his lease to +. Aug.
Heinzc. who still had II. Upon that show
ing the court overruled the challenge and
the puror was retained. The jury sworn
to try the case was composed of A.. Fitz-
gerald, M. A. Hickey, Gustave Jencke.
Fred Bliss. w. II. Price. w. II. Scheffel,
James G. Cooking. Thomas II. Bridgeman.
Patrick ColIigan. Charles Blackie, John
Hoskins and l.. l.. Mclaughlin.
Mr.. Heinze was the first witness on the
stand and he told all about his trouble
with Batterman, and how the latter left
his employ to go into the employ of the
Boston Il Montana and the Butte & Bos-
ton and took the maps and survey notes
of the Montana Ore Purchasing COM
pany mines and used them against the
company. Heinze testified that the custom
was that when an engineer left one en-
ployer he left his survey notes and
maps behind for the use of his successor.
He also explained how Batterman hap
pened to come to Butte. lie was located
at Aspen. Colo, and wrote to Mr.. Heinze.
He said he would like to come to Butte
and open an Office here as mining engi-
nerr, and said he would come for a retain
err of 800 a. month. Mr.. Heinze replied
that he was In need OF just such a man
as Batterman. and advised him TO come
to butte. Batterman came and saw Mr..
me XIV 49,
agreed TO employ him at $500 n month,
which was accepted by Batterman. The
latter had been previously employed by
the Boston a. Montana as an expert in
several mining cases and Heinze agreed
that Batterman could devote one-fourth
OF his time to those cases. Heinze did not
want Il TO be known that Batterman was
i'm the employ of the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company, and had him open an
Independent office In Butte as a mining
engineer. Their relations continued until
Batterman east his lot with the Butte &
Boston company and then the trouble be-
gan
on cross-examination Mr.. Heinze was
asked IL he had not also taken Engineer
Trerise from the Boston q Montana COM
pany. and he replied that he did and init
mated that he did not propose to let the
defendants lave all the best of IL.
To Judge by the slow progress made so
far the trial of the case viii take up all
of next week.