Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-01-16
AN IN AND OUTER
Phillip Herne Arrested at His
Country Home.
LOCKED IN JAIL YESTERDAY
But Released This MOrning--M Min
ing Company Answers
C0wan'S Complaint
LOCKED IN JAIL YESTERDAY

Deputy Sheriff Aware returned yester-
day from Park county with Philip Herne,
who is wanted here to answer a charge OF
kidnapping. Mr.. Herne is a Park county
rancher, but like Daniel f. Bandmann,
he once followed the stage as a profess
sion. According to a complaint filed
against him by his wife, who is seeking
a divorce and a division of the property,
he is fairly well fixed in the way of real
estate. They have a boy 6 years old,
who until recently was in the custody of
his mother. About two weeks ago Herne
came over from the ranch and stole the
lad, and the boys mother had a warrant
issued for his arrest. Before the paper
could be served, however, Herne escaped
and took the boy with him. Consequently
the deputy sheriff found it necessary to
go over to the ranch and get him. The
boy was not there; or at least he was not
brought back with his father. Shortly
after being placed in Jail Herne sent for
Daniel Yancey to look after his case, and
this morning the attorney got him out
on a bond of $500. The whole trouble will
be adjusted in court as soon as possible.
The Minneapolis Mining company, c..
H. Anderson and w. A. Larkin, who are
the defendants in a suit brought by F.. w.
CoWan to recover judgment for $3.50 al
legged to be due for labor performed by tho
plaintiff as superintendent of the defend
ants mine and mill work, have filed an
answer to the complaint. In the docu-
nent the, defendant mpa admits hav-
ing entered into an agreement with Cow
an to perform services for it, but denied
that Anderson and Larkin made a con-
tract or entered INTO any agreement with
him in any other capacity than as officers
of the corporation. The company denies
that the written contract accompanying
the complaint is all of the document, but
alleges that there was another sheet con-
tanning additional written terms; it de-
MES that the plaintiff performed the work
alleged in the complaint: denies that there
is now $3.50 or any other amount due him
as wages.
In the cross complaint the defendants
ask for judgment for 81 900 against Cow
an. In thisp part of the document they al
lege that Anderson and Larkin comprised
the board of directors for the company
and at at times were the president and
secretary: that the impair owned GER
tam unpatented mining claims IN Silver
Bow ounty that there was a large block
of treasury stock belonging to the COM
pany to be sold for the purpose of raising
funds with which to pay for the assess
ment work for 1898; that in order to raise
this money the company offered some Of
it's treasury stock for sale, when the
plaintiff, for the purpose of inducing and
~persuadlng the company to enter INTO tho
contract as set forth in the complaint and
answer, did falsely, fraudently and with
the intent to defraud and deceive the de-
PENDANTS, represent and state to Defend
ants that If the corporation would sign
the contract, inside of ten avs from the
time of signing it he would sell $4,000
worth of stock at % cents per share; that
DR.. Hanson, DR.. Nolan and Thomas c.
Marshall would take stock if he We're
made superintendent and that if he We're
not made superintendent they would not
buy the stock: that inside of two days he
would SELL 81, 900 worth of stock, as he
knew Just where he could do it, and if he
failed he would release the defendants
from all liability under the contract. He
further stated, says the cross-cOmplalnt
that he had managed large mining com
handsome at Spokane, one in Flathead
county and another at some other place
and had made a success Of all of them.
Defendants allese that these representa-
tives were false and made for the purpose
of ~defrauding and deceiving defendants
that defendants believed at the time tina
they were true and signed the contract
The defendants further allege that Cow
an never sold any Of the stock or con
tracted to sell it; that he never perform
ed any service for the company although
requested to do at various times by tn,
officers of the company; that by reason
of his refusal to do the work for Which