The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-04
BUTTE NEWS.
FILED THEIR CROSS BILL
The Heinzes' Answer in the Min
ME Healey Case.
SWEEPING DENIAL MADE
Did Not Take Forcible Possession While
Finlen Had 1t Under Lease-Al-
legs That Finlen. Has
Mo- Interest.

F.. Aug. Heinze, Arthur P. Heinze
and the Montana Ore Purchasing COM
pany yesterday made a 54-page type
written answer. counter claim and cross
bill to the suit brought in the district
court by Miles Finlen in the contro-
Versy over the Minnie Healey mine.
The defendants deny that they took
forcible possession Of the mine while
Finlen had it under lease and bond,
and it is denied that Finlen is the own
err of any right or interest under as
Eignment of the lease by James T. Fin
len and T. R. Kinds.
The answer says that F. Aug. Heinze.
in November last, for a valuable con-
sideration, succeeded to all the rights
under the lease by assignment from
Finlen, the latter agreeing to remain
nominally in possession for a short time
until Heinze could take actual posses
sion, and the latter should have 1.-The
right, If he so desired, to take posse
sion at any time. Peaceable possession
was given him last January, since
which time he has held the property
exclusively Mr.. Heinze says he ex-
pended large amount of money in de-
velopment work, by reason of which
the property has been greatly enhanced
in value, and Finlen agreed to deliver
to him a formal assignment in writing.
The plaintiff acquiesced in the develop
ment work until, by the expenditure of
a large amount of money, the defend
ant uncovered a body of commercial
ore, when he undertook to dispute the
defendants rights. Heinze says the
"a V
ing the oral assignment of his interests
in the lease, and from asserting any
right or interest in the property. Mr.
HeinZe says he has obtained a deed
of conveyance from John DeVlin,
Marion M. Devlin and Mary E. Reilly
for five-eighths interest in the mine, and
that he is now the owner of it, for
which reasons the plaintiff should be
estopped from claiming any right in
The lease, but that he be decreed to
hold the legal title of the interest
which he purchased from Caroline V.
Kelly, but that he should convey it to
the defendant
In his counter claim and cross bill, f.
Aug. Heinze recites the facts about
Finlen's rights under the lease and
bond prior to Nov. 81 1898, and says
Finlen had expended a large, sum of
money in development work and had
kept all the terms and agreements Of
the tfhSe,e out at sIne lime mentioned
he determined that the mine did not
justify him in further prosecuting work
under the lease, nor in expanding more
money on the property, and desired to
transfer his rights under the lease,
which he did to the defendant. The
consideration was that the defendant
pay the plaintiff 1927, 900 one year after
the purchase of the mine by defend
ant, and $4,000 more two years later,
the plaintiff agreeing to give the de-
PENDANT sufficient deed in writing. The
defendant recites the facts about TAX
ing possession of the mine under the
agreement with the plaintiff, and about
the development work he has done and
the purchase by him under the option
of the five-eighths interest from the
owners. The plaintiff, in violation of
his agreement with the defendant, OBJ
tanned deed from Caroline V. Kelly
for her interest in the property. Heinze
offers to pay Finlen the $54, 900 which he
agreed to pay, and asks the court to
decree him to be the owner of the Min
ME Healey against the plaintiff, and
that the latter be required to execute
and deliver to the defendant formal
written assignment of the leases and
of all his rights under them; that the
defendant be decreed the owner of the
legal title of the Kelly interest and that
the plaintiff be required to convey it to