The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-06-20
BUTTE News.
IN THE CONTEMPT CASE
Judge Lindsay Listens to the
Evidence, Pro and Con.
Mr.. HEINZE'S POSITION
As Soon as He Was Served With the
Injunction He Notified the Men to
Omit Work, and Was In
formed They Had.

The contempt proceedings against F.
Aug, Heinze and Arthur P. Heinze
We're heard by Judge Lindsay yester-
day, and decision will be made after
the court has examined the testimony.
The Heinzes were charged with DISC
beying an injunction order issued in a
suit brought against them by the Butte
& Boston company to restrain them
from extracting ore from a certain por
ton of the Michael Dewitt lode. The
injunction order was served on them On
June g. and it is alleged that on the
night of the 9Th and the following day
they were still mining in the forbidden
ground.
The first thing at the hearing yester-
day a motion was made by Attorney
Mediation to set aside and dismiss the
order to show cause for the following
reasons: Because the court had DO
jurisdiction, that the affidavits of c. S.
Batterman and r. It. Green did not
state facts sufficient to constitute a
contempt of court the statements con-
tanned therein being on information
and belief, and that the allegations Of
the affidavits were uncertain and not
specific as to the alleged violations of
the courts injunction.
said that the matter would be inquired
into: that the court could of its own
motion, if it believed that its order was
being violated, cite the respective par
ties charged with such violation to ap
pear and show cause why they should
not be punished for contempt. There
is sufficient here continued the court,
ito authorize the court to proceed. The
affidavits submitted when this order to
show cause was presented were at the
time examined and by the judge of the
court deemed sufficient to justify the
court in issuing the order now in ques-
ton
The defendants. by their attorney,
then entered a plea of not guilty and
the plaintiff started to introduce testi-
nlony, but another objection was made
and overruled. The deposition of A. P.
Heinze was read by the plaintiffs and
objected to by the defendants on the
same grounds set forth in the motion
to dismiss. The objection was again
oyerruled and F. T. Green was put on
the stand and testified that he was in
the workings of the Michael Dewitt on
the morning of June 10 and ran into a.
bulkhead on the 500 level and found
men on guard at other openings. They
stopped him and said that they had
been instructed by the shift boss to
keep him out. They offered him no v1o-
lence, but told him if he did not stay
out they would get into trouble with
their employers. Green saw men take
down ore and saw them haul out ore
on another level but on cross-eXamin-
alton he said he was not certain where
the ore came from. Several other wit
nesses testified that the defendants
worked in the ground after the injunc-
ton had been served, and Mr.. F'orbis
announced the close of the plaintiffs
case.
Mr. Meditation then moved for the
discharge of the defendants, and after
the motion had been argued on the
points previously advanced it was over
ruled.
F. A. Heinze was put on the stand
for the defense and testified that as
soon as he had been served with the
injunction order he notified the men in
charge of the work to cease working
and he was subsequently Informed that
they had stopped. Mr. Forbis, on
cross-exa minat ton, asked the witness If
any work had been done subsequently
to the 9th and 10th, but on objection
by Mr.. Mediation, the court ruled that
the examina ton would have to be con-
fined to the dates alleged in the aft
davits of the plaintiffs. Subsequent
violations of the courts order, he said,
could be made the subject of future in
quiry.
Continuing his testimony. Mr.. HeinZe
said he believed his order to cease work
had been obeyed.
Did you order the bulkheads put
.n2'
Yes SIR
when did you order them in?"
Just about the time the injunction
was served"
After or before?"
Il think it was after"
He said he could not say that any ore