The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-06
T|LTS WITH ATTORNEYS
Continued from Page

TN try to be good" put in the wit
ness, but Mr.. Forbis tries to get me
into an argument"
Il know he is a bad man." said Judge
Clancy, but try to avoid these argu-
ments."
The attorneys finally got through
| with MacGinnis and Under Sheriff ]. j.
Murphy was called to the stand and
questioned by Judge Mediation as to
what efforts had been made by The
Sheriff to serve the warrants of attach
ment on C. c. Batterman, Frank Eie
petko, G. NJ. Hyams, Joseph Vivian and
others. He said that the usual search
had been made by himself and Deputies
Evans, Aware and O'Neil, but that The
parties could not be found. The wit
ness said he had personally made a
search for them in the city, but had
seen none of them since the attach
ments had been issued
Deputy Sheriff O'Neil testified that he
had searched the town for the parties
wanted and had watched the residences
of some for hours without seeing any
thing of them.
After the introduction of several or
ders to show cause and the sheriff's
return thereon to the effect that the
parties named therein could not be
found, the plaintiffs announced the
close of their case.
afiidavits by Alex Husband, E. H. Lang
and Chas. H. Altmiller. Husband re-
ferred to the statements of ore returns
which were referred to by witness Mac
Ginnis, and said the ores were not
shipped to Great Falls. but to the Butte
& Boston smelter at Butte. Lang said
in his affidavit that his statements re-
lating to the Great Falls smelter in
cluded ore from sources other than the
B. &. M. mines and that the B. & M.
treated Butte & Boston ore and also
matte from the Colorado company. Alt
miliers affidavit referred to the $780,
900 deposited for the purchase of the
Sullivan mine, and said it was put up
by the Montana company, but not by
the New York company. but it drew in
terest while it was on deposit, but it
had all been repaid.
A number of court papers, including
written opinion by Judge Clancy in
the appointment Of the receiver, were
introduced.
An effort was made to introduce the
deed of reconveyance to the Montana
| company for the purpose of contradict
ing some of the testimony of MacGin-
mis-, but it was again ruled out. The
bill of sale of personal property was
also offered and ruled out.
An affidavit of Attorney L. o. Evans
relating to the proceedings in court in
which Kinds was appointed receiver
without notice to the other parties, was
read.
Mr.. Scallon, on behalf of the Boston
& Montana company, renewed the offer
to permit judgment to be entered in ia
vor of the plaintiffs for everything they
| could be entitled to on a final hearing
to enter perpetual injunction against
a transfer of the property to the New
York company, ordering a reconveyance
to the Montana company and for full
and complete accounting. The offer,
which was in writing, was as follows:
Boston & Montana Consolidated
Copper and Silver Mining company, a
Montana corporation, Boston G. Mon
tana Consolidated Copper and Silver
Mining company, a New York corpora
ton, Frank Klenatko, John F. Forbis
and G. M. Hvams, defendants, in the
above entitled action. hereby offer and
consent to allow judgment and decree
TO be taken and entered against them
forthwith in the above entitled action
perpetualy enjoining them and each of
them from voting, either in person or by
proxy, or as proxy or agent or attorney
for any other person, and from allowing
to be voted, in person or by proxy, any
shares Of the capital stock of the Ros-
| ton & Montana Consolidated Copper
| and Silver Mining company, at any
| meeting of the stockholders of said
company, held. or TO be held or at all.
in favor of selling the whole or any
| part of the property Of said corporation
mentioned in exhibit "a of the COM
plant or attempting to convey the min
ing property of the Montana company
to the New York company, or any part
| thereof; and also pprpetually enioin-
| ing the said defendant Boston G. Mon
! tana Consolidated Copper and Silver
! Mining company of New York from
| mining the property mentioned in ex-
hibit "A or the complaint herein, or car
rying on or conducting business thera-
| with, or from mining or extracting ores
| from the mines or mining claims there
! in mentioned; also perpetually eniOn-
| ing said defendants from conveying or
| attempting to convey the property of
| the Montana company described in the
| complaint to the New York company
and also ordering and requiring the
| said New York company to deliver to
! the Montana company all the property
received by it, the said New York COM
| pany, from the said Montana company
and perpetually enjoining said New
! York company from using said proper
| ty or mining or extracting any ores
| therefrOm or from removing or diSpCs-
| ing of any ores, concentrates or mates
| the product of any such property: also
| at1udglng mat the acts OF the direC-
| tors and officers of the Montana COM
| pany, so far as relate to the sale OF
| conveyance or the attempt to sell OF
convey the property of the said Mon
tana company to the said New Yorl;
company, he declared null and void and
that the deed of conveyance heretofore
given to the said New York company
by the officers and directors of the said
Montana company and executed in its
name, for all the property and rights
mentioned or described in exhibit "A
Of the complaint herein, which deed is
recorded on page 173 of book No &c
Of deeds, records of Silver Bow county