Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-01-21
ASKED TO EXPLAIN ALLEGED
DISCREPANCIES IN MINING
EXPENSES,
SUNK A SHAFT OUT
OF HIS JURISDICTION.
Property Has Been Worked at Loss
Although It's Value Has Been
placed at Five Million.

was ieSoiieu III Judge ClancyS court this
morning. The motion is based upon the
alleged incompetency of the receiver 70
conduct operations on the property. The
receiver is Being represented by John b.
McClernan and the Parrot company by
A. j. Shores and c. r. Kelly.
During the hearing on Saturday after
noon it was attempted to be shown by
the Parrot companys legal representa-
tives that Mr.. Mclaughlin had not been
conducting the work in a skillful man.
ner and what he had done was not to tha
advantage of the defendant corporation.
Notwithstanding that the Heinze's
claim that the Nipper mine is worth So
O0o.o0O. the fact has been shown that the
property has been worked at heavy loss
during the past few months.
This morning the receiver was cues
toned with reference to the work he was
doing. He said that the greater part of
the crosscut and drift on the SOO-foot
level had not been timbered In places
where the timbering had not been done
he did not have the regular country
rock. He said that in driving the cross
cut and drift at the SO0-foot he had en-
countered a body of water within the last
tbs working to dry out.
Referring to the June pay roll. he said
the handwriting was that of the time
keeper Wilson. but he knew it only be-
cause it was Wilson's duty to make it
up. The witness was questioned in de-
tail by Mr.. Shores on the various items
of expense incurred during June. AS
shown by the pay sheet, the total expense
of operation for the month was $780,
40, which included $260.94 insurance and
1920 for the hospital Asked if the pay
roll covered the expense of the operation
of A. p. Heinze's part of the property
and his own. too, the witness said it COW
cred only his own. Heinze, he said, kept
payroll Of his own.
Does that ray roll show what the
aggregate expenses We're during June 90"
asked Mr. Shores.
II think it does"
II ask to have the last page of the
payroll submitted in evidence said Mr..
Shores. "and also the footings of pages
from l to 9 inclusive"
Are you prepared to say whether that
is your payroll or Mr.. Heinze's:"
1T is my payroll
Can you say that the items set forth
therein represent those of distribution
for the month of June?"
NO; am not prepared to make that
statement. The man who made it up
can do that.
Have you paid for all Of the labor
performed during June?'
Yes sir. 1t was paid on July %"
Were the men who constructed the
ore bins employed by your
~, maid hv "
How many men are employed as
timekeepers?"
Two: one by A. P. Heinze and one
by myself"
II notice in your June statement that
YOU have an item of $6,S65.5O charged
as money paid to F. A. Heinze's Miners
Yes, sir; and l suppose it is his part
of the expense
Then you have an item of SIS, 406 40
as the amount of your payroll for June.
while your total expenditures in an
other place are fixed at $13,906.4O. You
could not make the two come out right
by either adding or deducting the
amount credited to the payment OF
Heinze's men,
The bookkeeper can explain that. !
have him here
The July payroll was then dissected.
1t showed a total expenditure of $780,
62745, of which the roll demonstrated
that $5,430.2O had been paid the miners.
Il will ask you whether you know
this payroll covers the pay or any OF
A T. Heinzes miners?'
Il am not positive as to that an
swered the witness.
Il see you have here one item of ex-
pense contracted for work done on the
L. L. r. mine. Where is that mine?'
Up the gulch."
How did you come to incur that eN-
pense?"
why, the Montana Ore Purchasing
| company wanted some work done there,
and not caring to put on men for half a
| day, it asked me to spare some of my
men, which l did. The money paid
them was credited back to U.S.
Does this payroll that you are eXhib.
iting here cover the payment of $o,O12.9'
to F. A. Heinze's miners?''
| II think it does not"
Some questioning along the line of the
| agreement between A. p. Heinze ant
the receiver relative to the expense OF
work by which both would be benehtee
followed, and the fact was brought ou
that the receiver had sunk Shaft NO. l
which is on ground outside of his juris
! work. over 81, 400, to his receivership.
Mr.. Mclaughlin said in explanation
this that there was no shaft on the par
of the property under his contrO..
The August payroll came next with
record OF $lS16S.45.
DO you think there are some item
in that roll that should not have beel
charged TO the receivership?'
Yes, SIR
lip NOUS lIOIkBd pun ,ueuIslels suL..
ference of about s., 900. Can you tell m
what has been cut out of your pay
roll?"
No; I probably could at the time i
was made up
At this point court adjourned for tn
noon hour and Mr.. Mclaughlin aske
for and was granted leave to look owe
the payrolls in order to be able to eS
plain the discrepancies at the afternoo