The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-02
A MOTION TO O|SSOLv.
The Injunction in the Tramway
and Snohom 'sh Suits.
BEFORE JUDGE LINDSAY
Defendants Were Also Restrained From
Using a Crosscut 300 Below the
Surface of the Johnstown.
Several Afhdavits Made.

motion in Judge Lindsay's court to
dissolve the restraining orders issued
last week in the case of the Boston &
Montana against the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company. William Kidney and
Max Shultz and in the case of the
Butte & Boston against the NJ. o. P.
Co., F. Aug. Heinze, Arthur P. Heinze,
Clara Larkin and the administrator of
the estate of James Larkin. In the first
suit the defendants were restrained
from using a crosscut 500 feet below
the surface of the Jamestown, and in
the second suit they We're restrained
from working the Tramway and Sno-
homish mines, owned jointly by the
Butte & Boston and F. Aug. Heinze,
without accounting to the plaintiff
company for it's share of the ore eX-
tracted.
In the Johnstown case Heinze relates
in an affidavit that the 500 crosscut
runs from the Rarus mine to the Sulli-
van, which he is working, and that it
in no way interferes with or DANA ges
the Jamestown. He says he is the own
er of third interest in the Tramway,
and is in possession of a portion of it,
called with the workings of the 500
foot crosscut, and it is to the advantage
of the owners of that lode to have the
ores trammed through that crosscut
and delivered at the Rarus shaft.
Heinze says the suit was not brought
for the purpose of preventing the de-
PENDANTS from mining in the Johns
town.. but for the purpose of harraSs-
ing and annoying them and preventing
them from extracting ores from the
TramWay. He also states that the
plaintiff brought a similar suit in the
United States court, from which an in
junction was issued restraining the de-
PENDANTS from extracting ore from the
YOUNGSTOWN and the order of the court
is strictly obeyed.
In the Tramway and Snohomish case
Mr.. Heinze recites in his affidavit that
he and A. P. HeinZe are the owners of
a half interest in the Snohomish and a
third Interest in the Tramway The
plaintiff claims to own the other inter-
ests, but they are disputed by the adj
ministrator of the James Larkin estate
| and by Clara A. Larkin, the only child
of the deceased. An action to have the
plaintiff declared a trustee of the Lar
kin interests is now pending in uhe
United States court and an injunction
from that court restraining the Butte
& Boston from mining the property
during the tendency of the suit, and
| There is also another suit pending IN
the district court against the plaintiff
in which Clara Larkin and Burdette
O'Connor are the plaintiffs, and in
which they claim ITO be the owners of
the interests held by the Butte & Bos-
| ton, and another injunction was issued
and is still in force.
Since March % the affiant and A. P.
| Heinze have, as they had good right
to do, been engaged in mining in the
two claims under and by virtue of their
ownership therein. The ores have been
| hoisted through the Rarus shaft for the
accommodation of the Heinzes, and not
for the Montana Ore Purchasing COM
| pany. The affiant does not know
whether the Butte & Boston is entitled
to any portion of the ores or not, for
| the reason that the interests claimed
| by the company are also claimed by
the Larkin estate, by Clara A. Larkin
| and by Burdette O'Connor, and that
question cannot be determined until the
| final trial of the suits. Heinze ella ms
| that an account has been kept of the
amount and value of the ores taken
from the two claims. and a separate
| account has been kept for each claim.
| He has never refused to account to the
| parties entitled to the ores or to the
plaintiff, but the latter has never de-
manded that it's share be left on the
uuillp anu has never OIIeTeQ 10 pay lis
proportionate share of the cost of min
ing For several days past, and pre-
ceding the commencement of the action,
the defendants have deposited on the
dump half of the Snohomsh ores and
two-thirds of the ores taken from the
Tramway, where they now remain for
the party entitled thereto and to be de-
llvered upon the payment to the defend
ants of proportionate share of the
actual cost of mining. Heinze says he
desires to mine the property, and he is
keeping an accurate account of the ore
taken out, and is prepared to account
to his co-oWners, but he believes the
suit brought against the defendants
was only to harrass and annoy them
and says if the restraining order is con-
tinued in force 1T will result in great
and irreparable damage to himself and
A. P. Heinze. wherefore the court is
asked to vacate the restraining order.