The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-02
Clancy Postpones the B. & M.
Case Until Monday.
BOOKS MUST BE PRODUCED
Contempt Proceedings Begun for Failure
to Turn the Properties of the
Company Over to the
Receiver.

terday morning that the election man.
damus case belonged to the other de-
partment of court, so Judge Clancy was
left free to hear the motion to discharge
the receiver but he only heard It half
way, and then continued it for further
hearing until Monday. a neremp-ory
writ of mandate from the supreme
court was served on him commanding
him to hear and determine the matter
before next Friday and report his ac-
ton aa thit time At the close of the
hearing yesterday, the judge made an
order that all the books and records of
the Boston & Montana be brought into
court Monday morning. apparently for
the inspection by the attorneys for the
Heinzes but really, it would appear, to
permit the receiver to get possession OF
them. During the hearing yesterday
some bitterness of feeling on the part
of some of the attorneys could not be
disguised. T. r. Kinds is not yet in
possession of the properties as receiver,
and no attempt was made yesterday to
get control of them, but contempt pro-
ceedings were instituted against Joseph
Vivian, general agent of the company,
and his attorneys, Judge De Witt, john
T. Forbis and l.. o. Evans, for refus-
receiver when the demand was made
week or two ago. The orders to show
cause why they should not be punished
for contempt were served on the ittor-
neys in the court room yesterday morn
ing and they were cited to appear and
answer on Monday at o'clock.
The general offices of the Boston &:
Montana company remained closed
yesterday. and tile mines were also smut
down in the afternoon, and it is under
stood that mining operations will re-
main suspended until the receivershn
matter is determined. Word was re-
ceived from Great Falls that the smelt
ers had also been closed. and through
the action Of the Wreckers more than
thousand men are temporarily thrown
out of employment. 1t was evident
from the fight made yesterday by
HeinZes attorneys in opposing the mo-
ton to discharge the receiver that they
regard the contest as just having be-
gun.
The first motion taken up was that
of the Boston & Montana company for
leave to file a supplemental answer in
which it was alleged that the causes on
account Of which the receiver had been
appointed no longer existed, as all the
property, money, etc, had been recon-
veyed to the Montana company by the
New York company. The answer stated
that all acts done by the defendants in
transferring to the New York company
the property were in good faith and for
the best interests of the stockholders,
believing that they had a right to do so
under the law as it was understood
prior to it's Interpretation by the SUI
preme court. Since then the property
has been reconVeyed to the Montana
company and the officers of the New
York company are ready and willing
to make a full and complete accounting
to the officers of the Montana company;
in fact that such accounting has al
ready been made Mr.. Forbs, after
reading the supplemental answer said
he did not know what opposition the
attorneys for the other side would
make. but if they were honest and sin
cere in their attempts to "protect' the
interests of the Montana company they
would hail with delight a matter which
would show that the affairs complained
Of by them had been corrected and the
cause of complaint removed.
The proposed answer concluded with
the statement that the defendant would
not again attempt to transfer the prop
crty except in accord with the provis
ions of the law or a modification thereof
by the legislative assembly,
In reply John ]. Mediation, Of counsel
for plaintiffs. said the concluding clause
of the proposed supplemental answer
showed that it was not the desire Of the
defendant to invest the Montana COM
pany with power and a right to Ope-
rate and manage the affairs of the COM
pany until the expiration Of its charter
MI Mediation said it was the evident
intention of the defendant to rec1nvey
its property to the New York corpora
item as soon as matters in the present
suit should be determined favorably to
them. Mr.. Mediation referred to house
bill No 1872 which was passed to per-
nit the defendant doing Just that thing
The proposed answer did not attempt
to show that the original deed to tbs
New York company, which had been
ratified by the owners of 131 900 shares
of stock out of a total of 10000. had
ever been Cancelled or set aside by the
same stockholders. The defendants ad-
Initted a wrong in deciding the property
to the New York company and they
have no right to be heard on a defense
set up in their proposed answer. which
does not constitute a defense in law