Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-04-18
Supreme Court Holds N. 0. P.
Not in Contempt.
D%ISOBEDlENCE
OILY Technical Violation Of Order
All Findings, Except Two,
Are For NJ. O. P.
Special to the Inter Mountain.

Special to the Inter Mountain.
Helena, Mont, April IL, 19OO.-"The evil
dence introduced for the purpose of estab-
fishing a disobedience of the orders of
this court fails clearly to satisfy us of a
violation OF them by the defendant This
is the way the supreme court character
lied the contempt proceedings recently
heard. in which the Boston & Montana
claimed the Montana Ore Purchasing Co.
had violated the Pennsylvania injunction.
of March. 1899. in the course Of an Opin-
ion handed down to-day dismissing the
proceedings.
1t was a signal victory for the Montana
Ore Purchasing co.
The entire ruling is in favor Of that
company except in two instances where
the court found hat while there had not
been wilful violation of the injunction,
there had been a slight disobedience.
This was upon encrOachmentS upon
the Pennsylvania ground in No. rs and
~ drifts. In the former the court says
that only enough ground was moved to
place a set of stopping timbers. and this
was one without any design to disobey
the injunction.
'Th encroachment was insignificant.
We do not regard this merely
violation as sufficient a cause for punish
Tant."
In regard to work in No. 20 drift the
| court says that the evidence showed that
the Monana Ore Purchasing Co.. engl-
neer directed the work be driven westerly
| but instead it was driven easterly until
! 26 feet were driven Inc timbered. then
the error was discovered and the work i'm
mediately stopped and driven westerly.
The court says hat the ore taken from
there was of small alu Although 1T
was taken in May. 1899, and the Boston
& Montana knew of it yet refrained from
commencing proceedings until ten
months later. Nearly ten months delay
in bringing 1t to our attention %justities
the belief" says the court, under all the
circumstances disclosed. that the plain
tiff did not feel that the violation was a
wilful or serious transgression of the Or
der"
Continuing the court says the evidences
respecting this drift shows a careless
mistake or blunder on the part of the en-
gineer for which a nominal fine shOuld
be imposed, but this cannot be done since
there is, nothing in the ~aft1davits that
fastens upon the Montana Ore Purchas-
ing Co., as a matter of law, in the doing OF
the act.
The court says that he a1fidavits on the
whole are lacking in w do
deem it not improper says the court in
conclusion, however. to remark that,
while upon slight evidence we shal not
reach out to infer wilfulness or intended
! disregard of our orders by those especial
duty it is to respect n to obey them.
yet the disposition of the court is to pun
ish severely, where the proof is clear of
any wilful violation or disregard OF the
injunction orders, and persons or corpor-
| ations enjoined need expect no leniency
when the disobedience of it's. mandates
is wilfully committed and proof is forth
coming under a sufficient charge that II
has lone so. For the reason that there
is no sufficient AFFIDAVIT upon which the
order to show cause of the proceeding
may rest, the order is vacated, the de-
PENDANT is discharged and the proceedings
dismissed.
The court in another opinion refused to
grant a rehearing of the motion by which
it dismissed the appeal case of Ben Baker
VS.. Butte City Water Co.