Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-11-19
THE MOTION
WAS DENIED
JUDGE KNOWLES DECIDES THAT
A RECEIVER WAS
NECESSARY.
TO OPERATE THE
SN0HOMISH MINE.
The Allegations of Mr.. Heinze Rela-
tive to the Property Not
Sustained.

Judge Knowles this morning denied the
motion of F. Augustus Heinze. as inter-
venor in the case Of the Butte and Bos-
ton vs.. j. F. Foi(bis ct al. to discharge
j. H. Harris, as receiver of the Snoho-
mish and Tranrway mines.
Mr.. Heinze asked hat the receiver be
discharged for the alleged reason that
tire Snohomish mine could not be worked
profitably through the Berkeley shaft,
and that the action of the receiver. in al
tering. filling up and destroying the
drifts, leads and openings of the Snoho-
mish had a tendency to destroy the value
of the property as a mining claim. and
unless the order appointing the receiver
was annulled. Mr.. Heinzes' interest in the
property would be rendered worthless.
Thu petitioner further stated that the re-
ceiver had changed the grades of drifts
so as to render the working of the mine
through the Snohomish itself impossible.
and to make it tributary to the Berkeley
shaft. which is owned and controlled by
the Butte and Boston
Attorney Evans. representing the plain
tiff company, presented a motion to
Quash the petition to discharge the re-
ceiver. saying hat there was nothing to
show in the petition that there had been
any change in the facts since the APP
pointment was made, and hat if a re-
ceiver was necessary at the time the APP
pointment was made. the same necessity
existed today. Heinze. he said, was not a
fit person to operate the property, and if
he objected to n of the actions Of the
receiver, he should present the matter to
the court in the proper manner.
Mr. nav a1c ru Nv HANNA
questioned the jurisdiction of the court in
appointing the receiver in the first place.
and claimed that the necessity of a re-
ceiver had never existed. He believed
that sufficient facts had occurred since
the appointment to justify the court in
vacating the order appointing Mr.. Harris
receiver over the whole property. He
presented a number of authorities on the
question of jurisdiction.
Mr.. Forbis replied at length, and re-
viewed the different features of the liti-
cation since the first appointment of Mr..
Harris as receiver over the dis
puted portion Of the mines, and
called the attention of the court
to the fact hat the only a
ner in which the interests of all owners
of the property could be protected was
through the appointment of the receiver
and subsequently extending the receiv-
ership over the whole of the property.
He took up the question of jurisdiction
and cited many authorities to show that
the court had full jurisdiction of tie
matter. He said that to discharge the
receiver would place the property in the
same position that it was in when Heinze
had full control, to the exclusion of the
other owners. The receivership, he said,
<Lo oc<oAo Gov, OH claim, ~ &,
and il was better for the II to ave the
| money, derived from the sale of ore, in
the hands Of a bank to be delivered,
when called for, than it vas to have the
money in the hands of the Montana Ore
Purchasing company.
! In passing upon the matter Judge
knowle said that it was in evidence
that prior to receivership, HeinZe had
mined the ores and had made no ac-
counting at all, and had put in a bill Of
$25, 900 to the other parties n had re-
fused to make an accounting until the
amount was paid. The court at that
time had not desired to dispossess Heinze
of his interests and had appointed a re-
ceiver only for that portion of the prop
erty in dispute. All the time that Heinze
had worked in the mine, jointly with the
receiver, there was trouble in regard tn
the charges made and affidavitc were sub
mitted in which it was charged that ore
run off as second class ore had been put
in the first class dumps by Heinze. There
We're counter afidavits, said the court,
out however, enough was said to arouse
suspicion. The court understood at the
time hat the ore of the Snohomish could
be mined through the Berkeley shaft
cheaper han it could through the Rarus
After the receiver had been appointed
for only a portion of the mines, there
were continual dissensions and und
the circumstances it was thought best to
put the receiver in charge of the entire
mine.
On the question of jurisdiction the
judge said that such jurisdiction had
been vested in the courts for the pas,