The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-20
THOSE CONTEMPT CASES
Another Phase of Butte's Big
Mining Litigation.
BEFORE JUDGE De HAVEN
Case No. 90 L. Dismissed-In some OF the
Other Cases the Defendants Say
They Were Only Doing De-
velopment Work.

yesterday Ju0St Dt maven VI ~
United states circuit court heard some
of the contempt proceedings which
have been instituted by the Boston &
Montana n Butte & Boston Mining
companies VS.. the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing the Chilli Gold Min
ing company. +. Aug. Heinze. John
McGinniss, Carlos Warfeld, +. l..
whitmore and others. The defendants
have been enjoined from working GER
tain ground which is now in litigation,
and the plaintiffs claim that notwith-
standing the injunction, the defendants
have been working the disputed
ground, extracting ore from II and con-
verting II to their own use. They
asked the court to punish the defend
ants for contempt. and the defendants
were cited to appear yesterday ana
show cause why they should not De
punished for contempt.
There are four of these contempt
| cases. OF these cases No. &c. charging
the Chill Mining company with ex-
| tracing ore from the Johnstown claim
lode. contrary TO the Injunction, was
dismissed. I'm cases Nos, 35 n 10.
charging the defendants with extract
ing ore from the Snohomish and
Michael Dewitt claims, the evidence
was all heard. The arguments viii be
made in these cases this morning and
the cases submitted. Case No. d,
charging the defendants with taking
ore from the Sullivan lode claim ron
trary to the injunction, was continued
to to-day.
In the hearing it appeared that some
of the defendants had worked the dis
puted ground to some extent under al
vice of counsel, but they assumed that
they We're not violating the injunction
for the reason that they were only do
ing development work, and IL was an
oversight on their part that they had
not noticed that this particular injunc-
ton forbade them working the ground
at all. The former injunctions Issued
had permitted them to do development
work on the disputed ground. and they
had supposed that these injunctions
also permitted them to do development
work and that. they claimed, was all
they had done.
In the Snohomlsh lode Mr.. HeinZe
had personally directed some develop
ment work. He had been absent from
the city at the time the injunctions
were served. they had not been served
on him personally. and he supposed
that they were similar to former In
functions, permitting development
work. He had no idea he was VIOLATING
an order of the court. The point was
also brought out In case 35, that the re-
straining order was observed by the
defendants until after the application
| for a permanent injunction had beer
heard by Judge Knowles and granted
! The permanent injunction required tn,
plaintiffs to put up a bond In the sun
/. of S100. 900. This bond was not filed b,
/ the plaintiffs, and after waiting on,
/ week for IL to be filed. Judge McHat
= ton, as attorney for the defendants ad
= vised them In view of the fact that tn
bond had not been filed that the!
: should consider the restraining order al
= having lapsed and should go ahead a
: though no injunction had been Is
sued.
. In connection with these contemp
cases a number Of papers were file
{ with the clerk Of the United state
$ circuit court yesterday. In case No. Z
e were filed the answers of the Montan
d Ore Purchasing company, Chill Col
n Mining company. John McGinniss. Car
los warfeld and r. l.. Whitmore. L
! No. II was filed the answer of the Mon
l lana Ore Purchasing ompany to tn
. charges of contempt. In No. 35 wer
d filed the answer OF the Montana on
Purchasing company, Carlos WarfielC
John McGinniss and r. i. Whitmor'
In No. Sc were filed the OF I'll
Chill Gold Mining company and War
field. whitmore and McGinniss.
. In the partition suit of the Butte
v Boston company VS.. John Forbis an
the Mcnamara estate. the petition {
James Larkin by r. j. Watson. h
guardian. for a stay of proceeding
was submitted TO the court and take
under advisement. An order was mad
= by Judge De Haven appointing r.
% Watson guardian ad Item to Jam,
- Larkin. an insane person.
10 II was ordered that the receiver
W the American Development g. Mini
% company be allowed TO omit the Coari
80 81 Gold Mining company from his appl
90 cations for patents.
.. In case No. ~, the Butte & Bostc
80 company filed it's answer to the Gro
os complaint of James Larkin. II deni
va that II got him 10 sign n deed TO a hs
S< interest in the Snohomish and a tw
thirds interest in tho Tramway loI
claim while he was insane.