The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1902-10-15
ATTORNEYS FOR MILES FtNlEN PRE-
rhRE ELABORATE BRIEF IN
THE FAMOUS CASE.
FACTS REVIEWED FROM THE
BEGINNING OF LITIGATION
Shows How Heirze ard John MacGinniso
Tried to Involve Finlen in a Suit With
the Boston & Montana and Incidental
ly Touches Upon a Certain Scandal
in Which All Are ,ritrcsted.

In few days the Minnie Healy case
will be ready for presentation to the su-
preme court. Forbs & Evans, attorneys
for Miles Finlen, the plaintiff and appel
liant, have prepared an elaborate brief.
containing 2S3 pages of printed matter.
The brief begins at the beginning and
shows that Heinze and John MacGinniss
tried to involve Finlen in a litigation
with the Boston & Montana Mining COM
pany.
Reference is made to the sensational
affidavits and to the Mrs. Brackett matter.
The brief urges that Finlen received
no adequate consideration for the alleged
assignment of the lease and bond, and
that the contract, If any was made, was
against public policy and void
Numerous errors of law in admitting
and excluding testimony are alleged, and
the brief says
From consideration of the whole
evidence there is but one reasonable con-
clusion deductible, and that is that Fin
lens version of the negotiations is the
only reliable one. His contention is that
there was no definite and completed con-
tract, nothing more than negotiations
which never entered into a perfect con-
tract. In the face of four witnesses who
have testified to the contrary, this asser-
ton might seem extravagant, but after !,
careful analysis of the testimony we do
not hesitate to say that no other concu-
sion is tenable.
The Testimony.
The testimony shows that prior to all
negotiations, Heinze and those under him
had been confcssedly persistent in their
efforts to involve Finlen in a lawsuit with
the Boston Montana company, and that
such litigation was not in the interest of
the Heinzcs, further than to annoy the
Boston Montana company They sougn,
to involve Finlen in his own right and not
in behalf of Heinze. This, in itself, is so
contrary to good morals and shows such
malignancy as leaves us at least the privi-
lege of doubling the veracity of the par
Elephants in such matters.
I'VE next find Heinzc clandestinely
purchasing from Devlin a part of the in
terest which Finlcn, then his friend, had
contracted to purchase. Had this been
done openly, and for the purpose, as
Heinze says, of relieving Devlin's necessi-
ties, no objection could have been made
thereto. But it was not only kept from
Finlen, but it was altogether secret. The
title was conveyed first to one Passmore
and from him to the Johnstown Mining
company, in which company Hcinzc pro-
tests that he holds no interest, and does
not even know its officers although he
admits that he negotiated the purchase.
In turn the Johnstown Mining company
asserts that when it purchased the interest
it knew nothing of Finlen's claim, and
therefore asserts that the title is unim-
peachable. Why was this done but to
put Henze in position to compel Finlcn
to do his wishes? The deed from Devlin
was procured on November IL, and at
that very time Finlen and Heinze were
professedly friends, and at about that
time MacGinniss was having Attorney
Mediation draw contract conveying to
Heinze, or to some one for him, all of
Finlen's interests. Why were these trans
actions kept from Finlen? Was it Heinze's
purpose to procure this interest in the
hands of an innocent purchaser, and then
to refuse to convey to Finlen, in case
Finlen should purchase? Or was it
Continued OH Page Five.)