The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-21
A VEIN OF ORE INVOLVED
A Temporary Injunction Issued
Against Edward Hickey.
QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP
The Suit Is Brought by the washoe
Copper Companions OF the Prin-
cipal Defendants Is A. P.
Heinze of the NJ O.P.

Judge Lindsay yesterday ordered a
temporary injunction 10 be issued in
the case of the Washoe Copper COM
pany against Edward Hickey and 9TH
ers, the principal defendant being A. P
Heinze of the Montana Ore Purchasing
company. The suit involves the owner
ship of the vein of ore in the Oden and
Nipper lode claims, and the hearing on
the application for a temporary injunc-
ton, which was concluded about a week
ago. had taken up several weeks In
ordering temporary injunction yester-
day. Judge Lindsay said
Upon the hearing Of the order to
| show cause whether the temporary re
straining order heretofore issued here
| in ought to remain in force and effect
and temporary injunction issue pend
| ing the trial of said action. the court,
| after consideration of the testimony in
| troduced and the showing made, finds
as undisputed that the defendants are
| working within and extracting valu-
| able ores and minerals from ground ~
ing within the vertical planes of plain
| tiffs lode mining claim. known as the
| Oden. II further appears to the court
| that the right of the defendants so to
| do is in question in this suit there be-
ing a contention as to whether the
| apex of the vein or lode from which
| said ore is being extracted lies within
| the defendants lodr mining claim,
known as the Nipper or within the sur
| face boundaries of the said Oden lode
| each party to the suit cOntending that
! the apex of said vein lies within it's own
| claim: the right to said ore necessarily
| depending upon the determination of
| that question on the final trial of this
| case. After duly considering the facts
| and conditions shown upon the hear
| ing. the court is satisfied that the pre-
| liminary order heretofore issued re-
straining defendants from extracting
| and converting to their own use the
| ore in controversy should not be dis
| solved. and that temporary injunc-
| ton should be granted as prayed by
plaintiff pending the final determine
ton of the question of the right of one
or the other of said litgants to the ore
| in question. 1t is so ordered"
| Judge Mediation, representing the
| defendants. suggested to the court that
the plaintiff should be required to put
up a substantial bond to cover the
| damages the defendants might suffer
| by reason of the injunction. He said
copper was bringing a very good price
| a present and there was no telling how
| long the price would keep up. The ore
| body in dispute he said. was a very
/ p
| defendants We're ready to show by tes-
| timony the amount Of damages they
would be likely to sustain. Judge Nc
Hatton thought a bond of at least
s250,0O0 should be required of the plain
| tiffs.
Judge Lindsay said. he presumed that
| the ore in question would remain in the
ground during the existence of the in
| junction. +1
Mr.. Mediation then made motion
| that the court set aside the injunction
order Just made on the ground that'the
| court had no authority to continue the
restraining order in force after the or
| der to show cause why a temporary in
| junction should not issue had been
| heard and determined
The court asked the attorney II an
order dissolving the restraining order
would not be equivalent to denial of
the temporary Injunction. Mr. McHat-
ton thought not and the court said he
considered his motion entirely technical
and overruled it.
Mr. Mediation then made formal
motion that the court require the plain
tiff to give bond in the sum of
$3.50 900 before the injunction should
| take effect He said he considered the
amount suggested about right, though
| he would leave to the courts judgment
as. to what amount of bond would BE-
reasonable.
| cit would seem to me-" said the court.
chat to require Of the plaintiff a bond
| in the sum of $3.50 900 would be nothing
| less than eXtortiOn. and | shall fix the
| bond at $4,000 which is considered
ample to protect the defendants against
any damage"
Mr.. Mediation then offered to pro
duce testimony TO show that $25,OOn
bond would be inadequate and would
not at all protect the rights of the de-
PENDANTS if it should be finally deter
| mined that the plaintiff had no right to
| the property in controversy.
.The court will say in response to
the suggestion of counsel, that the court
| considers that no testimony is neces-
sary. further than that already heard
in order to, enable the court to deter
mir the amount Of the bond, which Is
| SOUGHT TO he increased from $4,000 to