Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-03-22
MeSSrS LeWiSOhn and Couch to
Make DenialS.
TESTIMONY IS TAKEl
Papers In Pennsylvania Case Intro
duced In Nipper Receiver.
ship Hearing.

The hearing Of the petition of Michael
A. Hickey and others for the appoint
mentto of a receiver for h Nipper mine,
which was commenced in Judge Clancy's
court on Monday afternoon, was resum-
ed this morning. At the opening Of the
session Attorney Walsh. counsel for the
defendant (the Parrot company asked
for a continuance on the ground tina his
side desired to submit afidavits from
Thomas Couch and Jesse Lewisohn con-
troverting those portions Of Arthur p.
Heinze's affidavit relating to statements
credited to them, and would have to be
given q week or ten days in which to
prepare the documents, az Mr.. Couch
was in California and Mr.. Lewisohn in
| New York. The motion was based on
a~ffidavits from @. NJ. Hyams and John
f. Forbis.
In Mr.. Heinze's affidavit II was stated
that a conference between members OF
the Montana Ore Purchasing company
and members Of the Boston & Montana
company held in New York in 1897, and
at which Jesse LewfsOhn was present,
Lewiston had demanded a quarter Of the
capital stock Of the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company as a condition that
proposed suits against the company
would not be brought il the demand
should be met.
The AFFIDAVIT Of Mr.. Hyams, present.
present at that conference and that no
such demand as that credited to Lewis
ohm was made.
The other portion of Mr.. Heinze's afi-
davit which appeared to be objection
b to the defendant was a statment
purporting to have been made by Captain
Thomas Couch to the effect that while
he was. general manage for the Boston
& Montana company he had made a sur
vey of certain veins then being worked
;admitted that they belonged to the Mon
tanasOre Purchasing company. The aft
Y davit of Mr.. Forbis related to this. II
stated hat he, Mr.. FOrbis, had talked
to Mi. Couch q short time age in regard
to the matter and Mr.. Couch had told
him he had never made such an admis-
i sion and had net, surveyed the Working
; of the property ii -S. III.
W. ask that, either those two allega-
, lions be stricken from Mr.. Heinze's affi.
davit or that WI be given time In whicf
!. to prepare ounte a~ffidavits," said Mr.
!, Walsh.
I'VE shall oppose any continuance II
this case said Attorney Mediation TO-
/ the plaintiff. These identical matters
/ were brought out at the hearing of thu
Pennsylvania case seven months ag'
: and remained un~controverted by the de
l PENDANT. We also refuse to expung
them from the affidavit"
A compromise was finally effected-th
defendant was given ten lays in which t
y present the proposed counter aft1dav1t
t and the plaintiff five days thereafter 7
controvert the Counters.
The hearing then proceeded withou
further hitch. The plaintiffs offered i
evidence the complaint, answer finding
Y, Of fact, conclusions of law and the iudg
ment in the Pennsylvania case, togethe
with papers in other suits in which tn
Montana Ore Purchasing company an
the Anaconda are parties, following
with the presentation of the affidavit 9
e F. A. Heinze relating to the employment
a Of G.. s. Batterman as an engineer fo
y the Montana Ore Purchasing and M
q Batterman's subsequent 1af11liation wit
a the Boston & Montana company. Som
6 oral testimony was also taken.
Y H. A. Galway, a membe of the las