The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1901-08-06
JUDGE HARVEY
REFUSES TIME
He DENIES APPLICATION OF
pr DEFENDANTS IN MINNIE
HEALEY CASE,
Will Not Allow Further Time in Which
to File Afiidavits in Support of a
Notion for New Trial-The
Court Comments Upon the Case
81 Arguments Made by At
torneys for Both Sides.

When Judge Harvey convened his
court this morning Attorney Cornelius
Kelley, in behalf of Miles Finen. ap-
piled to him for an extension of time in
which to file at!i5ayits iii support of a
motion for a new trial in the suit in
volving title to the Minnie Healey mine.
which action is now pending between
Mr.. Finlen and F. a. Heinze and others.
The judge refused to hear the matter,
and. in passing upon it., said
This matter has become somewhat
personal to the court. in the capacity
OF citizen, not as a court and if con-
sidered that alone. and it is hard for
me not to consider it | would be very
glad to grant this extension, but the
rights of the parties must be considered
in this matter. The court has some
knowledge of the character of the evil
dence sought to be adduced. and I do
rot think the evidence is material to
the affidavits. Therefore, l refuse to
consider the application to an extension
of time in which to file the affidavits."
AS soon as Mr.. Kelley had offered to
make the application John J. Mediation.
one of the attorneys for the other side,
objected to it's consideration on the al
tended application given the defendants
was insufficient under the codes and rules
of the court.
The fact as it will appear by the rec
ord itself" said Mr.. Mediation, lis that
on Friday. about 4:So p. M. we were
served with notice. The notice read
that on August the application would
be made. The court will perceive that
the notice does not comply with the
rules of the court or the statutes. There
are. in this case. other facts known to
the court which would warrant the court
in refusing to grant this extension
MI. Mediation alleged that the find
fngs of the court We're made June %
and the application for a new trial had
not been made until ten days later The
plaintiff had then been granted a ten
days extension followed by twenty days
more. he added.
Mr.. Mediation called the attention OF
Judge Harvey to the recent order Of
Notary Galbraith committing him to the,
custody of the sheriff for refusing to-.
be sworn and give testimony in support
of the proposed motion for a new trial
and the subsequent decision of Judge Nc
Clernan declaring that the notary had
nc authority to punish for contempt. The
latter phase of the case, he said had
hsen fully presented to the court, ally
argued. and the court after mature de-
liberation. had found that the notary
had no jurisdiction. Now. sir,' said
he. there is a measure of justice in
this matter and the plaintiff should not
be granted an extension of time under
any assumption whatever. There is not
one iota to show that he is entitled to
a new trial on account of the conduct
of any one connected with this court Our
duty to our clients, court and the pub
lie demands that we insist that the
court should refuse to grant this contin-
uance. When is there to be an end to
this proceeding? The plaintiff has had
ample time and opportunity in which
to act"
In reply to this Mr.. Kelley told Mr..
Mediation he need not trouble himself
about entering into an extended account
of the proceedings "The notion" said
he, lis purely eN parte and does not re-
quire that notice should be given the de-
PENDANTS.
MI. Mediation referred to the time
we have had. We acknowledge our
selves indebted to the court FOR the ex-
tensions of time. but I will say that
nearly all of that time was consumed
with other proceedings in connection with
the case. What we have done in this
matter was not for the purpose of per-
sonal attack. but as a duty we owed
both the plaintiff and Defendants"
When the Judge passed upon the mat
ter there was some doubt as to whether
he was ruling on attorney McHatton's
objection or the hearing of the applica-
ton itself and he was asked to make
the matter clear, which he did.
20 vii CT.
ruling of the court in refusing to grant
the application and also ten days in
which to file a bill of exceptions on the
courts refusal to grant or deny the an
plication," said Mr.. Kelley The time
was granted.