The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-29

remember ali tnat was SdlQ at the
conversation in MacGinniss' office;
there was so much of it and / was in
a hurry"
State If any of the matters which
were stated by MacGinniss on the
stand were as stated"
Il don't remember all he said now.
He said good deal and I don't re-
member 1t. ! was to pay the expenses
of the development work until such
time as l returned and the agreement
was made. ! specified nothing about
the contents of the agreement because
l did not have time.
What rights was the agreement to
give Heinze?"
My rights in the mine"
"On what terms?"
THAT he would pay me back all I
was out on the Minnie Healey."
How much was that?'
1T was $4,000"
when was it to be paid?"
Il don't exactly remember; in INSTALL
ments: I don't remember the dates"
I'm January did you net ask me if l
had that contract prepared?"
Yes, SIR"
did ! not tell you that I had not
prepared 1t at that time?"
You told me that you had not
| thought of 1t since"
Did not tell you that would pre-
pare it shortly"
mo, sir
did not you say you wanted to look
1T over after 1t was preparod?"
Did not I say to you that of course
| you had right to look it over?'
mo, l do not remember stating to
you that had left word with Mr.. Cot
ter at your office that the matter was
| all off,"
Il wish you would state to the court
| just what conversation took place be-
| tween you and l at the time referred to
as you remember it,
Il asked you If you had those papers
drawn out and you said, No. you had
| not thought of it since, and I said,
That is all Off I don't remember now
what you said in reply"
Did you say anything in explanation
to me of why it was all off?''
No"
Did you say anything to me about
keeping the property yourself?"
| mo, sir; ! had it."
Did you ever make a demand on Mr..
! Heinze to turn over possession of the
mine to your"
mo, but l did to MacGinniss.'
"When?'
in February, 1899. some time before
the 24th.'
AT the time of the conversation in
Mr., Heinze's office, when the contract
was made, did not you suggest to one
| of us to get out a written assignment
and have you sign it that evening be-
| fore you left?''
| mo, sir"
did you not at that time tell Heinze
to go ahead with the work in the
| mine2'
Il told him to go ahead with the law
suit"
Did you not at that time state that
| your word was as good as your bond ~
/ Eyes, sir"
'In what connection did you make
| that statement
in connection with the lawsuit he
| wanted to bring and about commencing
it in my name and about doing work in
the mine under my direction"
Wasn't 1t with reference to the con-
tract?"
II could not tell what the contract
would be-"
That concluded the testimony in the
case. The plaintiffs attorneys were
willing to submit the matter to the
court without argument, but the de-
| PENDANTS attorneys did not wish to do
so, and brief arguments We're made,
Mr.. Cotter for the defense opening
| During the course of his summing up
of the case he said:
'They start out with an allegation
of forcible entry, but they do not main
tain it, but rather they show them
selves that they sent men down to the
mine to take forcible possession, which,
fortunately, they did not succeed in OBJ
tanning. After we have developed the
| property and made mine Finlen de-
| sires to eject us. We say a man who
seeks equity must do equity. With
out reflection on either of the gentle
men who have testified, we certainly
have the preponderance of evidence,
and Mr.. Finlen is not in position to
deny having made this contract. We
are in possession of the property. The
plaintiff paid out 50, 4su. The defendant,
during the same period, paid out $5,490,
and besides, up to July !, about 5000
more
The defendants attorneys then sug-
gested that If the court was of the opin-
ion that temporary injunction should
issue they would ask the court to va
cate the injunction ordered upon their
giving bond to indemnify the plaintiff
against such sum as the court saw
proper to fix.
Mr.. Dixon, in reply, stated that on the
other hand the plaintiff was willing to
give bond under the same statutory
provision in such amount as the court
required.
Judge Dixon, in his argument, stated
that there was no adequate remedy to
a man for ore wrongfully taken out OF
his mine and 1t was for that reason
an injunction was proper.
THE ore IL the injunction is granted
will remain in the mine and no injury
can result to Heinze. Whereas, If he is
allowed to go ahead and we are pro-
tected only by bond we have no pro-
lection at all, as it is impossible prac-
tically to ascertain what has been taken
out of the ground or the expenses con-
nected with its mining and reduction
The very essence of an injunction is &c
preserve the property in statu qut
pending the trial. The very fact that
the rights of the parties are in ques-
tion is the very reason why an injunc.
tion should issue. The court will see ar
absence of good faith all the way
| through, Heinze buying in November
1898. from Devlin part of the interes
which Devlin had obligated himself tc
sell to Finlen. They claim to be sc
heightened and honorable in their deal
ings that they slip off and get bono
from a man the plaintiff had been deal
| ing with. When a man undertakes t
make a verbal contract about as inn