The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-03-16

plaintiffs appeared without notice and
specially to make an objection to the
court hearing the application for a stay.
He SAID they Were entitled ito notice
OF an application of that character and
he would ask the court to require the
defendants to give The plaintiffs at least
hVe days notice and to have the matter
set down for hearing at some future
time He said they also wanted copies
of the affidavits flied. Mr.. Mediation
thought it might not be inappropriate to
call the courts attention to "a few facts.
Inc courts order appointing the re-
celVer on the application of the plant
IFS still stands and the defendants by
every means anQ clntriVance in their
power legal and illegal, have tried to
prevent the order Of the court from be-
ing carried into execution. Mr.. McHat-
ton said Kinds had been refused posses
sion of the defendants properties and
the officers of The company had made
preparations to give fOrcible resistance
to the order of the court. Until the
charges made against the defend
ants are heard ana disposed of they are
not in a position ~ ask for stay or
anything else.
Judge Cullen also argued that the de-
PENDANTS Were entitled to notice, and
t'Ai N'SeiitIl Sdiu IL NiS Liz lIISI llIH9 IN
his practice that h. had heard Of coun-
sci specially appearing for the purpose
OF making an objection. He thought it
was like childs play. The plaintiffs
kne" that the motion for stay was
TO be made because notice of it was
given them in open court last week,
yet no notice at all was required under
the law. The receiver was appointed
out or court and without notice to the
defendants and the order to grant
stay or even to vacate that order could
not be made without notice. Mr.. Scallon
said it would be absurd to require a
notice of five days, which would carry
the matter two days beyond the time
for which the stay was asked for.
Governor Smith also said the defend
ants We're not in position to ask for any
thing and that they were in contempt
OF court for refusing to turn the prop
erty over to the receiver.
Judge Dixon said he did not expect
the court to show any favors to the B.
& M company, but On the other hand
he also hoped thai the plaintiffs. the
Heinzes and the Montana Ore Purchas-
ing company, would he shown no special
faVors by the court. He said the de-
PENDANTS were not asking at this time
TO have the receiver discharged, but
simply wanted a stay Of two or three
days until the merits Of the case could
be presented to the court. The hear
ing on the motion 10 discharge the re-
ceiver had been continued until next
Saturday at the request of the plaintiffs
attorneys and stay Of proceedings I'M
der the receivership could certainly
hurt no one.
Mr.. Mediation started to make an
other argument and Judge Dixon OBJ
served that for a party who was not
appearing Mr.. Mediation had rather
much to say, especially as the other side
had the closing argument.
Mr.. Mediation appealed to the court
for permission to talk more, but Judge
Clancy said he had heard enough and
would make no order at all, but con-
tinue the further hearing until Satur-
day.
Mr. Scallon then presented a motion
that the bonds of the receiver be in
creased from 100000 to $1,000, 900. The
motion was supported by an affidavit
by C. S. Batternan setting forth the
fact that the defendant company had
s2,oOooO0 worth of personal property on
hand and showing the daily output of
ores. Mr.. Scalloni said a 100000 bond
was ridiculously small and the receiver
could take much out of the mines in
three days and half.
i will hear it all next Saturday."
said Judge Clancy.
Mr.. ScallOn then presented another
motion that the court make an order
on the receiver to stay all proceedings
until the further orders of the court.
IN hear that next Saturday." said
the judge, and make one grist Of the
whole business"
Mr.. Mediation then presented two af-
fidavits by Mr. Kinds and a motion to
cite the attorneys and officers of the
Boston & Montana company into court
to show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt. The order was
signed and set for hearing on Saturday.
Kinds said in his affidavits that Attor-
neys Forbis, Dewitt. Evans and Mar
shall had cOunseled the defendants not
to obey the order of the court and the
New York corporation, which had been
enjoined against disposing of the prop
erty in it's possession, had violated the
injunction and transferred all the prop
erty to the Montana company. He also
related that he had made demands of
Hyams, Vivian, Davis, Batterman,
Dunshee, Miles and Dave for the pos
session of the property and that it had
been refused him.
As soon as Judge Clancy announced
his refusal to grant the stay of pro-
ceedings and had signed the order cit
Ing the parties for contempt, the attor-
neys for the defense got into communi-
cation with Helena, and through Attor-
ney Ransom Cooper of Great Falls Sc
cured writ of prohibition from the su-
preme court which will be served on
Judge Clancy and Kinds this morn
ing.