The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-15
OBJECT TO CAMPBELL
B. & B. Company Does Not Want
Him as a Commissioner.
THE PARNELL INJUNCTION
Hearing Continued to Dec. e-Defendant
Files Answer-Mr. Heinzs Denies
That He Ousted the Ana
... conda Company.

| In the condemnation suit of the Mon
| tana Ore Purchasing company against
| the Butte g. Boston company, objec-
tons were filed yesterday by the de-
PENDANT to r. M. Campbell as one OF
the commissioners appointed by Judge
Clancy, on the ground that he had been
one Of the jurors in a case tried IN the
United States court in which the same
| matters were involved, being the value
of the property sought to be condemned,
and that therefore he had an unquali-
fled opinion or belief and was disquaE-
| fed from acting as commissioner.
| Upon these representations Judge Clan
cy appointed Charles Schatzlein in place
Of Mr.. Campbell. In the United States
court Mr.. Campbell voted with the other
II jurors for verdict Of 81 in favor Of
the Butte & Boston as damages for 10
| acres of ground covered with tailings
/ by the Montana Ore Purchasing COM
pany.
| In the suit of the Anaconda Copper
| Mining company against f. August
| Heinze, an action for injunction to re-
\
| Parnell mine, which is owned Jointly
by the parties TO the suit, without re-
| gard for the rights Of the plaintiff, the
| order to show cause why the injunction
| should not be issued had been set for
hearing yesterday, but was continued
4 by Judge Clancy until Dec. 9. In the
| same case the defendant yesterday filed
/ his answer, admitting that the plain
| tiff Is the owner of seven-tWefths OF
| the Parnell, but denying that he ousted
| or elected the plaintiff. Heinze says he
| has been the owner of an undivided in-
| terest in the claim ever since April,
4 1893, and was a co-tenant of the grant
| ors of the plaintiff until they conveyed
their interest to the plaintiff, and has
been in actual possession of the prop
erty from that time to the present with
| the full knowledge of the PLAINTIFFS
| grantors, and has been engaged In min
| ing the property. At the time he went
! into possession he incurred large ex-
pense in equipping and completing O
hosting plant and machinery with the
| full knowledge of his co-tenants At
that time no ore in paying quantities
| had been developed or exposed. and at
his own cost and expense he prosecuted
the work of development, and now Is
and ever since that time has been in
| actual possession and occupancy of the
shaft and underground workings, and Is
engaged in carrying on the actual min
| ing work. All the work he has done
! has enhanced the value OF the Parnell,
and since the plaintiff has come into
| possession of the seven-tWelfth inter-
est it has never objected to the min
| ing done by the defendant. The under
ground workings in the possession OF
| the defendant comprises but small
portion of the claim and aside from
that and small portion of the ground
surrounding the collar of the shaft the
plaintiff is in possession and entitled
to the possession of its undivided in
terest, and g the defendant has never
ousted or excluded the plaintiff from
any portion of the claim, but on the
contrary the plaintiff has always had
access to all portions thereof, including
the shaft and underground workings,
which are occupied by the plaintiff.
Heinze says he has heretofore notified
the plaintiff that he assented to its en-
tering upon any portion of the Parnell
not actually occupied by him and en-
gaging in mining work thereon and
also to enter and inspect all the work
ings made by him. The defendant fur
Their says that the actual cost Of min
ing from the time he became an owner
of an interest in the Parnell up to the
time the plaintiff became an owner Of
an interest, was far in excess of the
value of the ores extracted during that
time. The same is alleged to be true
for the time since the PLAINTIFF became
the owner Of an interest in the nina.
The defendant says that before the suit
was brought he rendered an account
Of the actual cost OF mining up to the
LIST of August, and offered that II the
plaintiff would pay its proportionate
share of the cost he would deliver upon
the dump its proportionate share of
the ores extracted, and to account for
all ores previously extracted by him,
but the ulaintiff refused to accept the
offer. The defendant says he also Of
fered to permit the plaintiff to examine
the books of account containing the
items of expenditure for mining and for
receipts for the ores, but the plaintiff
refused to accent or receive such state
ment or account or to pay any part
OF the amount which the defendant had
expended for the actual cost of mining.
The defendant says he is now ready
and willing to render an account, but
says there have been no net profits
from the mining operations carried on
by him on the Parnell and that the
actual cost of mining has far exceeded
the amount and value of the ore ex-
tracted. The defendant AYERS that he
has declined to allow the plaintiff into
Joint occupancy with him of the under
ground workings in which he is engaged
in mining until he shall derive from the
ore which may be mined sufficient to
pay the actual cost OF mining such ore,
including the amount of money already
expended by him over and above the
value of the ore taken out, or until the
plaintiff shall pay or tender to him it's
proportionate share Of his actual cost
of mining. He further claims that he
is entitled to remain in occupancy of
the property and says that he will here
after be ready and willing to account
to the plaintiff for its proportionate
share of the net profits, and that all
work he will do will be done in a good
minerlike manner, by which the value
of the property will be greatly en-
HANGED. In answer to the second cause
of action all the allegations of the pre-
ceding cause are reported and it is
further alleged that the demands made
on the defendant by the plaintiff for a