Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-03-25
The B. & NJ. and NJ. 0. P. Co.
Case in Court.
ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD
The Contempt Case--NO Further Fine
Was Imposed on Mr..
HeinZc.
Special to the Inter Mountain.

Special to the Inter Mountain.
Helena, March 25.-The contempt pro-
ceedings instituted in the supreme court
against F. Aug. Heinze of the Montana
Ore Purchasing company, who was ill at
the time the officers of the company and
Arthur Heinze We're fined for violating
he injunction in regard to extracting
ore from the Pennsylvania through the
Rarus We're heard by the supreme court
today. Heinz and three engineers in the
employ of the Boston and Montana We're
examined. Heinze testified that the por-
ton of the mine to which the injunction
applied was being worked by lessees and
not the NJ. O. p. and if there had been
violation of the injunction the lessees
were responsible. An effort was made
to draw from him the fact that ore had
been taken from the property since the
last contempt proceedings. He admitted
there might have been some dead work
done but so far as he knew there was no
straight mining. Sam Davis and two
other civil engineers by the name OF
Dickerson and Gruer swore that after
the last contempt proceedings they mao
seen men working in certain portions OF
the mine. A large number or spectators
crowded into the supreme court during
the hearing which took up nearly all the
morning. HeinZe was represented by
Governor Smith. w. e. Cullen, c. r.
Leonard and w. Y. Pemberton, while the
Boston and Montana was represented by
Judge Dewitt, Governor carpenter, Tan
SON Cooper, William Scallon ana Will
lam Dixon. Messrs. KlepetkO, Batterman,
Vivian and other officers of the Boston
and Montara We're present. rms AFTER
noon court announced it's decision.
The court said that after considering
the matter it had arrived at the conclu-
sion that Mr.. HeinZe was on trial TOR a
violation of the injunction order since
the last contempt proceedings were had
and that inasmuch as under the contempt
proceedings heretofore had they had
fined both the NJ. o. p. Co. and it's Ollie
ers. who We're then before the court, they
would make no further fines on account
! of the violatl on of the order prior to that
| time. The court was Of the opinion, how
! ever. that r. A. HeinZe had been guilty
of a technical viola ton of the order since
| that time; that the order was broad and
! sweeping enough TO cover all work IN the
disputed premises, including develop
mnnt work: that if the parties to the &C
ton desired any change in the order SO
as to allow them to do development work
they should apply to the court for a mod
) ifcation of the order to that effect. but
until that was dome the court would in
sist upon a strict compliance with it's or
der no matter how sweeping it's terms
might be.
! Gov. smith said that Immediately after
the adjournment in the forenoon, Mr..
! Heinze had t~elephoned to Butte. instruct
Ing his company to cease operations or
every kind in the disputed premises until
the further order of the court. The gov
ernor also expressed the hope that the
court would modify the injunction SO
that the work necessary to develop the
proof in the cases now pending might be
prosecuted. The chief justice reiterated
what he had said about modifying the or
der. The court then announced that I'M
der the circumstance Mr.. HeinZe would
! be excused from further attendance upon
the court at this time. The court heard
arguments and affidavits pro and con on
the motion to quash the writ of prohibit
tion. with the Indications that the argu-
ments will consume a large part OF the
afternoon.