The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-06

ment on information and belief, and he
was asked who gave him the informa-
ton.
Arthur P. Heinze,'' was the reply.
zone member of the Montana Ore
Purchasing company tells another
thing and ne goes and swears to it's
that the way of it" asked Mr.. Forbis.
The witness made another argument,
and told about the use of money on the
Boston stock exchange.
do you know it to be a fact that
the company used money in that way?"
Il believe 1T is.
who, besides Arthur P. Heinze, told
you SOP"
Many others"
"Who?"
I'VE talked it over with so many peo-
pie that cannot name any now
why don't Arthur P. Heinze testify
to some of the things he told you? Are
you the swearer of the company?'
II am willing to swear to what l be-
lieve.'
You are willing to swear to anything
that is told you or you believe?'
"Yes-no-I-.''
Mr. Forbis asked the witness if on
the 18th Of last December he did not
make an affidavit accusing the direc-
Tors of the Boston & Montana company
with delivering large sums of money
to the Lewisohn Brothers and others,
which was converted to their own use
and benefit.
Il did"
'Is it true?''
4 believe it is.
Don't you know on the contrary
that it is not 'true?'
The witness houndered for while
and then went into some New York
court history and the Sullivan mining
DEAL in which he said the Lewisohn
Brothers bought the mine to prevent f.
Aug HeinZe from getting it, that he
bought it for himself, and that he
bought it for the Boston & Montana
company.
THAT is my information and belief"
said the witness.
lone man furnishes the information
and you furnish the belief" suggested
Mr. Forb:s.
Mr.. Corbettt came to the rescue of his
witness with an objection.
You should have objected sooner
and saved this gentleman from being
shown up" said Mr.. Forbis.
Mr.. Corbett said the affidavit of De-
cember Is had nothing to do with the
hearing, and so far as the materiality
of it was concerned. it might be adj
mitted that the affidavit was false.
Il wish to know" put in Mr.. Seal
lon. IF the gentleman admits that the
affidavit is fase?'
II admit tthat it is true. or that it is
false for the purpose of this hearing"
The attorneys were still talking when
Judge Clancy told his bailiff to adj
journ court for the noon recess and he
left the bench, leaving the attorneys
still talking.
At the afternoon session of court
MacGinnis was asked if he had not said
that the Sullivan claim had not been
bought by the Lewisohn Brothers for
the Boston & Montana company.
IF there had been no litigation be-
tween the NJ o. p. company and the
Boston & Montana, Lewisohn would
never have paid $150O00 for property
that was not worth, according to Mr.
Batterman-"
The witness was interrupted by Mr.
Forbis, who said he desired an answer
ITO his question. but MacGinnis said he
could give no palmer answer.
Now, Mr.. Heinze,' said Mr.. Forbis
lis that the only money that has been
diverted?"
MY name is not HeinZe."
well, it's the same thing" said Mr.
Forbis.
The witness said that was the only
money he knew of that had been "di-
verted," and he knew that it was ap-
proprated for ,the purchase of property
for the Boston e. Montana.
MacGinnis said he never received any
dividends on his Boston & Montana
stock from the New York company, but
he got them from the New York compa-
ny. He said he would have received
larger dividends if the property had
never been transferred to the New York
company, by which large sums Of mon
ey had to be paid out in litigation One
item of expense was $685. in revenue
stamps which had to be put on the
deed of reconveyance to the Montana
company. Few of the Witnesses an
swers were direct replies to Mr.. Forbis'
questions. but the attorney vainly tried
to stop him. The court instructed the
witness to answer the questions prop
erly.
May I ask your honor question:
asked MacGinnis of the court.
"Why. yes said his honor.
Mr. MacGinnis said he wanted to
know if the attorneys could stop him
in the middle of an answer when they
found they were getting information
they did not want.
"Why, no, of course not" said the
court
The witness blamed the New York
firm of Guggenheimer. Ultemeyer &
Marshall for all the trouble the Boston
& Montana had gotten into, by giving
the directors bad advice. He was ask
ed II 1t was not 1act tnaI ne himself
tried to break down the stock of the
company on the market and sold short
himself. An objection to the question
| was sustained. The witness drifted
from the subject again to say that he
| believed Boston & Montana ore was
| used to keep Butte & Boston affairs
| going. MacGinnis testified concerning
| some statements issued by the Boston
& Montana company and signed by
| Alex Husband He was asked If he did
| not know it to be a fact that Mr.. Hus-
| band was chief clerk of the Butte &
Boston. MacGinnis' answer was the
| usual argument and motion was made
| ITO strike out his answer. The court
| asked the stenographer to read the
| question and answer. and in the mean
| while, the witness continued his talk
| and was allowed to go on by the court
| Mr. Scallon got up and protested and
! the court told him to keep quiet
Il am appealing to this court as an