Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-05-05
Some Things But Would Not
Tell About Them.
HE WOULD NOT DISCLOSE
The Whereabouts OF the Defendant
Officials During the
Shutdown

ings in the case of Forester and MacGin-
mis- against the Boston & Montana COM
pany was resumed in Judge Clancy's
court this morning.
Before adjournment last evening there
arose a question as to whether or not the
parties alleged to be in contempt could
be compelled to testify against each 9TH
er. The matter was argued by counsel ana
at its conclusion the court took it unde
advisement. This morning he rendered a
decision and it was to the effect that the
defendants would have to testify. In
making the announcement he in sub
stance said: Last night I looked this
matter up and while 1 am not fully salts
fed as to whether this action is criminal
or civil, I found a decision in the second
Missouri report which confirms my belief.
-Four men were taken before a United
States grand jury for playing faro in
the market house at st. Louis. One was
asked If he had seen the others playing
at the game. He refused to answer on the
ground that it would incriminate himself.
The UNITED States supreme court held
that he must answer the question, but he
was not bound to say anything regard
ing his own actions. I think that is a fair
proposition. I also found something of a
similar nature in a rule laid down by
Chief Justice Marshall i'm the Aaron Burr.
case. My decision is that these defend
ants must testify as to each other"
The hearing was then proceeded with.
Joseph H. Vivian was placed on the
witness stand and asked as to the where
abouts of Mr.. Batterman between the
dates in which the latter is alleged to
have been in contempt. The question
was OhinRfnd fn hy AT~ Coo11o~ II, -
tailedhis reasons why the objection should
be sustained. The learned attorney pro-
duced authorities to maintain his posi-
ton. but failed to convince the court that
the legal pedestal upon which he stood
was tenable. AS an offset to what Mr..
Scallon said, the judge read the decision
IN the st. Louis faro bank case, but Mr..
Scal!on claimed there was a clear dis
tinction between the two actions.
The question was then repeated and the
court Informed the witness thai if he be-
heved an answer would incriminate him
self he need not reply.
Il refuse to answer, because itmight
tend to incriminate myself" said Mr.,
Vivian. "
HAS G. s. Batterman at anv time made
any statement to you wit reference to
MS refusal or non-refusal to deliver the
property of the Boston & Montana COM
pany to the receiver appointed by this
courA"' asked Mr.. Mediation.
An objection on the ground of personal
privilege was overruled, and the witness
refused to answer.
d you state that your refusal RI ar-
swer might tend to incriminate you in, the
matter now pending before the court o.
do you know whether the propertv "a
the company was closed at any time AFTER
the LIST of April through any order of G. S.
Il refuse to answer on the sama
grounds as before"
Davis?" ." ~ n.
Yes, SIR"
DO you know the condition of the
Leonard and Colusa mines at the time
this roubl arose?"
Il guess 1 do"
Were these properties boarded up dur
ING the months of March and April?"
~ am not sure about that"
DO you know where c. r. Davis was
W March 81 and April 81"
Il know nothing whatever of his wheye- !
abouts; or do I know where Dunshee
was."
DO o know where Batterman and
WISE during that period?"
i refuse 70 answer on the ground hat
1t might tend to incriminate myself"
S"A JON oNulC whether OF not w. H.. |
John F. Forbis or l.. O.. Evans
at any time advised any of the officers or
employees OF the Boston & Montana COM
to disobey the order of this court
them to turn the property over
to the receiver"
II refuse to answer"
when did you return to Butte?"
Il refuse to answer and base it upon !!
the same reason as before stated"
'NVhnn did NyO,, 1n.k c4- -
L. 0. Evans n w. H. Dewitt in Butte
during the mont of March?'
Il refuse to
Mr.. Vivian also refused to say when !
he had last seen Frank Klepetko and
other officials of the during |
n April.
Asked if G. M. Hyams had told him
durlng the month of March or April that
he had or would refuse to turn the prop- |
erty of the company over to the receiver,
Vivian refused to answer. He also
took a similar stand on several other
Of a similar natur and was
Court then adjourned for the noon
hour.
At the afternoon session c. s. Batter
was the first to give testimony. He
aid he occupied the position of assistant
superintendent during February, March
April of this year. He knew Joe
he was chief clerk. He did not
know what position G. r. Hyams held
With the company: did not know Thomas
R. Kinds. but he had been pointed out
him.
Then followed a line of questions and
answers similar to those in the case of
Vivian. He said Kinds had not made a
IN him for possession of the
property on a certain date. but when
lsked If Kinds had ever made a demand
lie declined to answer because his per-
interests might be involved. He
would not state where he was on April |