The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1902-01-22
JOHN +. FoRBIS OCCUPIES g
OF COURT OPENING IN Pc
SYLVANIA CASE.
ROOM is FILLED WITH MAPS
Each Side Given Three Hours to Pre-
sent Its Case--Judge Mediation Made
Last and Closing Argument for
neinze Interests.
Especial to Inter MountaIn)

Especial TO Inter Mountain)
Helena, Jan. 22.-The entire day was
occupied In the supreme court today
with the argument of the famous Penn
sylyania mine ease.
Two large models were on exhibition
In the courtroom, also 30 maps showing
the various levels OF the Johnstown.
Raius, Snowbrd and Pennsylvania
mines.
Each side was given three hours to
present It's case.
John IT, Forbis opened his argument
during the forenoon session, and COM
peted 1t at o'clock. when Judge Me-
Hatton addressed the court.
During the forenoon Mr.. Forbis argued
the case from the view point that the
case was tried In equity to determine the
rights of the plaintiff, and the defend
ant has been refused a jury trial. The
case should have been tried as n case Mt
law rather than a case of equity. 10
deny the Boston ~ Montana company Il
jury trial was an infringement upon It's
constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs had ample recourse to
the law. They should have maintained
the suit at law instead OF dismisslng II.
Equity Suit Would Not Lie.
Mr.. Forhis declared that when the
suit at law was dismissed II carried
with 1t the dismissal of the equity suit
from which the plaintiffs secured IA ver-
dict In Judge Clancy's court.
II was not possible to maintain an ac-
tion In equity where continual trespass
was alleged until title Is established by
n legal action.
The equity suit would not lie.
'The case Is one involving merely the
question of boundaries" said Mr.. For
bis. ''The plaintiffs claim they have
extra lateral rights which viii enable
them TO follow the veins which apex In
their property wherever they go.
Such case has never been tried In
court of equity. 1 defy the other side TO
cite one single case whore IA question OF
this kind has been determined without
a hearing before jury.
Such n matter can never be settled by
equity. Ii must be tried by jury.
ITO deprive person or corporation OF
the right to a jury trial In IA question In
volving his property rights Is an In
fringement upon his constitutional
rights.
Take for illustration In the case of Il
man who Is sued for timber trespass
committed upon land belonging to an
other he would be given a Jury trial,
and so In this case an equity action can
not be maintained"
Deny Extracting Ores.
Mr.. Forbis read sections OF the brief
filed by himself and associates In which
the Boston g. Montana company denies
that IL has been extracting ores from
veins In the Pennsylvania mine which
apex In the Johnstown ground.
THE plaintiffs" the speaker said,
biased their claim entirely upon the fact
that they owned the Johnstown claim
and claimed extra lateral rights and In
accordance with such rights had the
privilege OF following into any other
property the veins which apexed I'm the
Johnstown claim.
"The defendants deny" Mr. ForbIs
nverred. that any of the veins now
being worked apex In the Johnstown
ground"
In reply to the charge that the plant
iff was holding wrongful possession OF
ore bodies which the plaintiff claimed,
Mr.. Forbis said was also denied. The
Boston Il Montana, as would be shown
by the exhibits, owned all the veins In
the Pennsylvania mine.
Mr. Forbis addressed particularly,
however, to the question of the legality
OF the action brought in the lower court
the question of boundary would be one
for the court to decide after the legal
questions involving the validity Of the
trial In Judge Ciancy's court had been
disposed Of