The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-03-26

"And you didn't take the pains to
find out what the court had ordered
you to do and not to do?"
well, I supposed it was an injunc-
ton from operating that ground
You didn't read it to find out wheth-
err you had leave to go on and do de-
velopment work."
mo, SIR
Then you didn't get the contents
of that injunction order at alp
We'll, understood it was an in
junction. I looked at the title and
looked at the ground that was COW
cred, and that is all I did,
You understood that it was an in
Junction.
Yes, an injunction order by the
court"
you didn't care enough about it to
find out what they did order?"
why, / supposed that after looking
at those things, l ought to know the
gist of it,
Don't you know as a matter of fact
that that order enioins your company
from entering upon that ground at all
or doing any work there whatever"
mo sir; didn't know that"
''Then you didn't read it to find that
out?"
mo"
Justice Pigott then asked the wit
ness what time he was served with
the injunction on the I'd of March.
A. Some time in the afternoon.
@. About what hour?
A. I should say about or 4 O'Clock
somewhere around there
@. What did you do as soon as you
were served?
A. l spoke to my brother about it.
@. What did you tell him?
| A. l spoke to him about the order,
| and said. Here is an order from the
supreme court in connection with this
suit by the B. & M
! @. Did you give him any instruc-
| tons?
A. He told me then that the prop
| erty was being operated by the leas-
@: Did you tell him to stop the leas
ers?
A. No sir; did not.
| @. You believed at that time that
lease of Feb IS?
A. Yes. sir
G. Did you at any time on the I'd
| of March ask your brother to order
| the men to stop work?
A. Well, he advised me that the
| property was being entirely operated
| by the leasers at that time
@. VIII you answer my question.
| Did you give him any instructions on
that day to stop the leasers from
working?
| A. No, sir.
@. Do you know why he did order
| the stoppage of work on that day?
A. Well, / did not know that he
had, not as far as the leasers were
| concerned.
@. Then, after being served with the
injunction order, you did nothing with
respect to stopping the work on the
ground?
A. As far as the NJ o. P company
was concerned. ! did. ] spoke to him
| with reference to the property being
| operated by the company, and he said:
This property is being operated by
the 1easers now"
This concluded the taking of testi-
| mony. The attorneys did not ad-
dress the court Governor Smith, how
ever, remarked that he hoped the in
junction was not so sweeping as to
| prevent even dead work from being
| prosecuted. The court announced that
it would render it's decision at o'clock.
The writ of prohibition then came up
| for consideration. The court decided
that it would first hear the arguments
pro and con on the motion to quash
| the writ, and at the conclusion say
| whether 1t desired any evidence. w.
| e. Cullen spoke for about three-quar-
ters of an hour in favor of the motion
| to quash. He was followed by Mr..
Scalon, who opposed the motion. Mr..
Scallon had not completed his argu-
| ment when a recess was taken until
o'clock p. M.
When court met in the afternoon
| Chief Justice Brantly announced the
courts judgment upon the contempt
matter. He said that the court had de-
cded not to punish Mr. Heinze.
las far as F. Aug. Heinze is con-
cerned," said the chief justice, I'VE
have reached the conclusion that Mr..
HeinZe is on trial for violation of the
| order after its service on the I'd day
| of March till the order issued in this
! contempt proceeding was made, and
| IOt for any technical or other viola
| ton of the order that has occurred
/ since that time. Having gone to that
matter on the Sth or 9th Of March, and
| imposed what we deem sufficient pun
ishment for that offense upon one of
the officers of the company and upon
| the company, We have concluded that
We will not infiict any other punish
| ment, the proof not making it clear that
| +. Aug. HeinZe has been guilty by di-
| rect connection with the violation of
| the order before. 1t appears, how
| ever, from the proof here and the in
Vestigation this morning, that there is
| a technical violation, at any rate Of
this order, or has been since the last
| hearing in this court The order is
| broad, and broad enough to exclude
| even the development work within the
| boundaries of the Pennsylvania claim,
New. whatever may have been the Gus