The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-05
B. & N. CONTEMPT CASES
Judge Clancy Finally Calls Them
Up for Hearing.
NO SENSATIONS SPRUNG
Evidence offered Consisted of the Rec
ords In the Famous Receivership
Matter-Court Says They Are
Not Criminal Proceedings.

ing ont oe 49,
u Tie fecelVefshlp case, yes
terday. There was nothing of a SEN
sational nature at the baarins and
nearly all 40 ,,,a
+ho oiieieo against
''ie uelehdants consisted of the records
IN the receivership case The hearing
was not concluded vestard.y
Aftar 1,,a,
| ieS ii'hu ahhouileeu
nus readiness to hear the matters At
tofney Mediation asked that the names
u McHatton Cotter, Clayberg &
| Eoi pett ana =. H. Leonard be entered in
ehe case as amlcus curlae, to which Mr..
| 0callon OBJECTED. He said the attor-
neys had been appearing for the plant
ms IN the case, Forrester and MacGin-
Miss, and they might as well continue
TO appear in their true colors instead
~ -. pretending TO appear as friends of
ny court.
| WI ocailon opJection was overruled,
| Judge clancy saying the court did not
want no act Tor Itself in the hearing
anu IL was proper for the attorneys
| " ,soTnt ~.
, vi. Me1attoh then asked that all the
uelelloants enter their appearance, and
MI, nealloh SAD that all who had been
| &C. sSu were present IN court except G.
| W. nyahs. Those present We're John
l
Evans, j.. II: VIVIAN {. 5. Batterman,
". n, Miles =. r. DAVIS, Richard Dave
| anu ID. .. Dunsnee
lr. ecallon observed that Eve might
Just as wen get down to business and
ne eHtefea plea OF not guilty for all
we ueieLdants. Mr.. Mediation object
| Gu ~ tue plea ana SAID the proceeding
!or c"h,ehipt was not a criminal mat
Ter, ana While the plea did not amount
| ~ any thlnS ne uld not want the records
20 sho" tne plea. lie also gave notice
.ilat a. the conclusion OF the testimony
ne "oulo ask 10 nave all pleas stricken
OUT ana 10 enter default against all
lne ueieliuants. Mr.. Mediation then
proceeded TO introduce his evidence in
me form OF number OF athdaVits
winch nag flF q, peen hled IN the recelvershlp
case. . tl. nrsrs5.. ,,-
WI ocaHoh asked that the nearing
AGAINST Attorneys Dewitt, Forbls anu
Evans De taken up hrst and separate
IRON .ne other detenoants.
Mr. Mchatton sald all the defendants
were charged JOINTLY ana they should
oe trlea together.
MI. ocalion coRtendedl that the
Ciiarses ana the iacts We're vastly Diff
lereht DIS they related TO the attorneys
anu Tue o'ner uelehoants. he also re-
| lerfeu 10 the right or the defendants
10 pieao not guilty ana read from an
| oPilioL VI .ne SCUM Dakota supreme
| court, IN which 1t was held that such
| was the proper proceeding IN contempt
| matters.
| JuQges&Glaalncy SAID the court had an
| impression mat there was difference
| between the charges against the at
| eorneSs ana those against the other de
lehuahts' out an attorney VINO advises
ahotllei person TO Nloiate the court
order IS equally guilty with the prln-
| IL,
matter was not CRIMINAL case and he
Wouid near all the testimony ana at its
conclusion would determine VINO was
sullty uhuer the evidence.
| MT. McHattoh introduced a batch OF
papers a1fldavlts, orders, etc, to show
that Dewitt, Forbls and Evans We're
| attorneys Tor the Boston Il Montana
company; that Thomas r. Kinds was
appointed receiver and that a demand
| Tor the surrender of the property was
| mace on Joseph ii. Vivian, as agent
| OF the company, and that he refused to
turn it over to the receiver.
Mr.. Scallon objected to the sufficiency
| or the evidence offered. He said the
| charges against the three attorneys
were made on information and belief,
| and that the affidavits offered in evil
| dence We're no more evidence than a
| complaint or information in a crimi-
| nal case would be competent evidence
! against the defendant. The aftldaVltS
stand only in the nature of a complaint
| or charge which must be proved by
| competent evidence. II the ex parte
| aHldaVlts were received as evidence,
said Mr.. Scallon the defendants would
| be deprived of their constitutional right
| to meet the witnesses against them
face to face and cross-question them.
Mr.. Mediation, replying, said there
| were numerous decisions of courts all
the way up to the supreme court Of the
| United States that such proceedings
were not criminal in their nature and
| that the hearing could be had on afft-
daVlts alone. In the noted Debs case,
ne sald, the supreme court of the Unit
ed States said that a contempt pro-
ceedlng growing out of civil case was
ltseif OF a civil nature and when the
court administered fine or other pun
| lshnent Tor violation of its orders, it
dln not Apply the criminal law.
e J.,