Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-02-18
THE C0-TEMANCY BILL.
THE ANACONDA COMPANY SEEK THE REVOCATION OF THE Or
DER MADE BY JUDGE CLANCY.

The order made by Judge Clancy last
company from interfering with F. Au-
gustus Heinze in the working of the Nip
per and l.. r. r. mines has resulted in
the defendant filing in court a motion to
secure the revocation of the order.
1t will be remembered that in the COM
plant Heinze states that he owned 81
36ths of the Nipper and 12-15ths of the
L. T.. r., and that he believed the Ana
conda was about to begin an action to
prevent him from working the properties.
Heinze also requested the appointment of
two receivers. one for the Nipper and
the other for the l.. E. r., and asked that
the Anaconda company, which owns the
interests in the two properties not claim
ed by him, be enjoined from interfering
with the work pending the hearing of an
order to show cause why the proposed
receivers should not be appointed. He
wanted the receivers appointed in such a
way that they would not interfere with
Thomas Mclaughlin, who is at present
acting as receiver for portion of the
Nipper, and Arthur p. Heinze. who is
leasing on another section of the same
claim. Judge Clancy made the injunc-
ton order and set the hearing of the or
der to show cause for May Is. three
months away.
The action by Heinze is alleged to be
the result of the decision of the supreme
court a short time ago declaring the CO.
tenancy bill passed by the legislature
two years ago, to be unconstitutional.
That bill provided for the working of a
property by one owner without the con-
sent of the other owners, and HeinZe has
been working the Nipper and l.. Il. r.,
under that law. If the motion to APP
point the receivers should not be heard
until the date fixed by the court HeinZe
could get in three months work on the
properties without interference: and
then if the receivers should be appointed
the work would be continued until the
trial of the PARTITION suit which would
be some time within the next ten years.
In the motion filed by the defendant
Heinze is accused of having acted in bad
faith in the matter. While the court is ac-
cused of mprovidence in issuing the or
der In the document the defendant
says:
',The court has no jurisdiction or au-
thority upon the facts set forth in the
petition to enjoin or restrain the de-
PENDANT from bringing an action for
the protection of it's legal rights i'm the
property mentioned if it shall see fit
to bring such action. The petition shows
on it's face that the said Il. Augustus
Heinze is co-tenant with the defend
ant in the ownership OF the Nipper lode
mining claim, and that the said Arthur
=. HeinZe is lessee of said +. Angus
tus Heinze. and has no rights in said
premises except under such lease. 1t
further appears that the said Arthur
Heinze is mining and extracting and re
moving ore from the said premises with
out the consent of this defendant. and in
violation of defendants clear. legal right,
as established by the decisions of the
supreme court Of the state of Montana.
The effect of the restraining order is to
deny this defendant it's constitutional
right to seek redress in the courts of
this state for wrongs committed against
it, and to shield the petitioner and his
lessee in the commission of said wrongs.
"Such restraining order operates to
secure to Arthur p. HeinZe the privilege
of taking and extracting ores from the
property in question, belonging to this
defendant, until the 18th day of May,
1901, without any claim. pretense or
shadow of right in the said Arthur p.
Henze to SO take and remove said ores.