Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-08-11
Over Which There is a QueS-
ton Of Jurisdiction.
IT. INVOLVES TITLE TO
The Vein of the JOhnStOWn aud PENN
sylvania Mining Claims-ln
Court Today.

One of the numerous suits to quiet title
to mining property in this district was
called for hearing in Judge Clancy's
court this morning. but as it was pro-
posed to hear the issue without a jury
the question of jurisdiction was raised
by the defense at the very outset and
considerable time was consumed in dis
cussing the point raised.
The title of the suit is the Montana
Ore Purchasing company against the
Boston & Montana company. The OBJ
ject of the action is to have the courts
decide the ownership of the vein of the
Johnstown mining claim, owned by the
plaintiff. Like all other veins of the
Butte mineral zone, the one in the Johns
tow departs from the perpendicular in
its downward course, and the plaintiff al
leges that in it's pitch it enters the YER
teal lines of the Pennsylvania, owned by
the defendant. For this reason it claims
ownership of the vein and the further
right to prevent the defendant from ex-
tracing ore from it. Some time ago the
plaintiff brought suit in the United States
court against the defendant on the prop
osition. In that action damages in the
sum of $500, 900 We're demanded and in adj
dition to this the plaintiff asked the court
to temporarily enjoin the defendant from
further work on the vein. The judge of
that tribunal decided hat the suit was
one of equity, and it was dismissed by
the plaintiff without prejudice. Later,
another complaint was filed in the dis
trict court, but the damage section
which the former complaint contained
was left out. This is the suit called for
trial today. Each side is represented by
a retinue Of legal talent n mineral ex-
perts. Mediation & Cotter, F. E. Cor
bett and Robert B. Smith appear for the
plaintiff, Inc John Forbis, William H.
Dewitt, William Scallon and Thomas H.
Paterson, the latter the well known Colo
rado mining attorney, are looking after
the interests of the defendant. Experts
scheduled to give testimony for the
plaintiff are Messrs. Robinson, Trerise
and MacFarlane, mining engineers of
this city; Messrs. Neil and Palmer of
Utah., n Walter Kelley of Elkhorn. The
Boston& Montana company's experts are
Messrs. w. A. Akers, Braden and Hayes
of Butte, Messrs. Chase, Wiley n Tyler
of Colorado, Clarence King of New York,
Mr.. Wood of Helena and Mr.. Janin of
San Francisco.
When the matter was taken up Mr..
Forbis raised the question of the juris-
dictiOn of the court acting without a
jury and read several authorities to
maintain his position. He expressed the
belief that it was not within the prov
ince of a court Of equity to grant a per-
manent injunction in a matter in which
title to the property involved was dis
puted. He said he did believe Judge
Knowles would grant an injunction in
a case of this nature until after a legal
action at law had been commenced to
determine title to the property. He said
the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at
law; that courts of equity granted relief
in cases only when courts Of law could
not.
Mr.. Mediation acted as spokesman for
the plaintiff. He maintained that there
never had been any merit in the position
aiken by the defense. The plaintiff had
dismissed without prejudice it's action for
damages, but it might yet entertain the
gentlemen on the other side with an
other suit n it might not; such a course
was to be determined.
Mr.. Mediation talked until the noon
hour and announced his intention of re-
Stunning at o'clock.
T. NJ. Patterson addressed the court
this afternoon in behalf of the defendant.
consuming nearly the entire session with
the presentation of the various phases of
the controversy. Being we'll versed in
cases of this nature his argument was
forcible. He objected to the case being
heard in equity until the extra lateral
rights of the controversy should be deter
mined by an action at law.
o~---