Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-01-21
FOR MINNIE
HEALEy ORE
MILES FINLEN FILES A COUNTER
CLAIM AGAINST THE
HEINZES'.
ASKS FOR HALF
A MILLION DOLLARS.
For Ore Alleged to Have Been Taken
Out of the Property-story of
the Transaction.

Miles Finlen, who recently returned
from a trip through Europe, has filed
in the district court reply to the sec
Of f.. A. Heinze. Arthur p. Heinze and
the Montana Ore Purchasing company
in the suit over the ownership of the
Minnie Healey mine, and thanked it
with a demand for Judgment for $780,
000 against the defendant, F. A. Heinze,
to recompense him for ore alleged to
have been taken from the veins of the
property since Heinze took possession
of 1T in 1899. The document as d whole
is voluminous, containing 43 pages of
typewriter matter. w. w. Dixon, A.
j. Shores and j. K. Macdonald are
Frniens attorneys. In the reply Finlen
denies that HeinZe has been entitled
to possession of the property since 1898,
by reason of the leases and agree
ments, and denies that the plaintiff
forfeited all of his rights by failing and
refusing to comply with the terms and
conditions of the lease and bond. which
fell into his possession. He denies that
he abandoned the property after Octo-
Der of 1898.
Finlen goes deeply into the details of
the entire transaction regarding the
property, saying among other things
that Heinze ouSted him from posses
sion and has held it himself ever since.
He. says further that in November Of
1898 Heinze desired to prospect the Min
ME Healey with Il view of aSceItaining
whether a certain vein having its apex
within it's lines dipped into adjoining
properties belonging to the Boston &
Montana company, with whom he had
extensive litigation, the adjoining
claims being the Piccolo and Gambetta.
He says he allowed Heinze to put men
to work. but these men, he alleges,
were under his control and were paid
by him for their services. He denies
that Heinze and himself had any under
standing with reference to the price he,
Heinze, was to pay him for the mine,
provided he desired to sell. Afterwards
in February of 1899, he demanded Of
Heinze that he remove the men en-
r,oyed and cease work, and Heinze
then claimed for the first time that
he. plaintiff, had agreed to transfer ID
him all Of his interest in the property
under the lease and bond, and refused
to take the men from the mine; that
Henze, by force and threats, excluded
NM iioIIl tIlO CldlIi dllu IT'S WORKINGS
and has ever since held possession of
the works
In his cross bill Finlen alleges that
in February of 1896 John Devin. Marian
M. Devlin and Mary E. Reilly owned
three-fourths of the property, and
they leased and bonded it to Thomas
r. Kinds for two years, the agreement
being that Kinds was to pay them
$4,000 for their interest in case he de-
cided to buy the property: that on
February II OF that year Kinds trans
ferred the lease and bond to James T.
Finlen. and few days later James I.
Finlen transferred the lease and bond
to him. plaintiff; that in October of
that year the Devlins and Mary Reilly
extended the time of the lease to the
Cd of February, 1900: that at that time
Caroline V. Kelly owned an undivided
quarter interest in the mine and she
leased and bonded it to James r. Fin
len for $4,000 This interest. the plain
tiff says, was also transferred to him.
and Mrs Kelly afterwards extended the
time of the lease and bond on it. He
further says he paid the Devlins and
Mrs. Reilly $4,000 and also paid $25. 900
to Mrs. Kelly, the money being de-
posted in the First National bank for
them. and demanded of them a bar
gain and sale deed: that on the 22nd
of May, 1899. Mrs. Kelly decided hir, a
one-twentieth of the property, and ex-
pressed willingness to convey the
balance of her interest as soon as GER
tain probate matters in which the prop
erty was involved should be determine
ed that he began work on the prop
erty. and while in charge +. A. Heinze
took forcible possession of it and ex-
tracted ore valued at $500, 900, for which
sum he demands Judgment.