The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-06
ARE CITED TO APPEAR
An Alleged Violation of an In.
junction Order.
THE MINNIE HEALEY CASE
Suit to Compel Performance OF Con-
tract in Connection With the Klon-
.gEs dixie Placer Clatm-Magill Has
Paid No El,mony.

n Augustus Heinze. the Montana Ore
Purchasing company and the Johns
town Mining company have been cited
to appear before Judge Lindsay to show
cause, if they have any, why they
should not be punished for contempt
for an alleged violation Of an injunc-
ton order issued in the Minnie Healey
mining case, in which the defendants
were restrained from working in por-
ton of the ground in dispute. The cita-
ton was issued upon several aftidavts
filed in court by the plaintiff. Miles
Finlen makes an affidavit that he is in
| formed and believes that the defend
| ants have not obeyed the restraining
! order but have wilfully disobeyed it,
| and ever since the order has been made
| they have been mining and extract
| ing ore from within the premises de-
scribed in the order; that the work has
been carried on in what is known as
| the northeast drift Of the Rarus S00-foot
| north cross-cut, extending through
| portion of the Tramway lode claim and
| into the lines of the Minnie Healey. 1t
| Is alleged that they have also been en-
| larging the shaft on the Minnie Healey
4 claim and retimbering it,
| Rollin Hall states in an affidavit that
since Sept. Is he has observed workmen
| in the employ of the defendants eA-
| tracing ore from the ground in ques-
ton. The order to show cause will
probably be heard before Judge Lind
say on Oct. Is.
A suit to compel the performance of a
contract relating to the transfer of q
half interest in the Klondike placer,
situated in the Moose creek district,
| h,y
Peterson and John M. Bloom against
Rudolph Young. It is alleged that on
| Nov. H. 1898, the defendant entered into
an agreement with the plaintiffs to
transfer to them all Of the claim in
question, representing to them that he
was the owner of all of it. Under the
| terms of the agreement the plaintiffs
were to pay him 5000 within three
months the defendant to hold the legal
title to the ground in the meanwhile.
Prior to Feb. l, 1898. the plaintiffs paid
him $142 on the purchase price and then
discovered that he did not hold the legal
| title to the entire claim, but only owned
half of it, and the plaintiffs demanded
| that he convey to them what Interest
he had in consideration OF the money al
ready paid him, but he refused to do so.
| The court is asked to compel him to
make the transfer and also TO refund
the $42 paid him, by mistake, in excess
| of the value of half interest.
| Upon an affidavit made by John w
Cotter, attorney for the plaintiff in the
divorce suit of Bridget Magiil against
William Magill, the latter was yesterday
cited to appear before Judge Lindsay
at II o'clock this morning to show cause
why he has not obeyed the order of the
court relative to the payment of ali
mony and why he should not be pun
ished for contempt. Mr. Cotter sets
out in his affidavit that on March "a
1898, judgment was recovered against
the defendant for permanent alimony
of $50 a month and that he has refused
to pay any part of it. On the 18th OF
last month there was due the sum OF
1913 80 and on that date an execution
was issued and placed in the hands OF
Sheriff Regain for service and the sheriff
had certificate of deposit on a banl
payable to the defendant, but the sher
if refused to turn the certificate over a:
partial satisfaction of the execution
The sheriff is also ordered to appea
and show cause why he should not b.
required to turn the certificate of de
post over to the plaintiff.
The clerk of the district court mad
his report yesterday of fees collecte'
| during September as follows: