The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1902-04-29
Justices InQuiSitiye and
Asked Many Questions
During Argument
IN COURT or LAST RESORT
After Full Argument by Judge Lind
say on Behalf Of Judge Harney and
T. J. Walsh on Behalf of the Attor-
neys in Contempt the Proceedings
Are Annulled-Many Authorities
Submitted to Support Both Sides
of the Case.
(speclai 10 Inter Mountain)

tSpeclai 10 inter Mountain)
Helena, April 29.--At 2 o'clock this
afternoon the supreme court made void
and of no effect the famous order of
Judge Harney, committing to custody OF
sheriff OF Silver Bow, Messrs. j. r. For-
bis and l.. o. Evans. reputable Butte
attorneys. for so-called contempt of
court
The order. which has so completely
taken the wind out of Judge Harney's
sails, came quietly from the lips OF Chief
Justice Brantly, as follows:
Upon examination Of the Judgment
of the district court whereby the peti-
TONERS were found guilty OF contempt,
and in pursuance of which they were
committed to the custody Of the sheriff
of Silver Bow county, the court finds
that the same is void in that the said
Judgment as far as contempt In the
presence of court, does not recite any
fact showing that contempt had been
committed.
"It Is therefore ordered that the
Judgment be annulled; that the petit
TONERS be discharged from custody and
that their bail be exonerated."
a. Evans, took up the case and briefly
reviewed the history of the Minnie Healy
litigation leading up to the contempt pro-
ceednRs.
Then he quoted from an opinion of the
supreme court OF March II, when Har-
ney was commanded by writ of man
date TO determine the motion for new
trial
within that suggestion counsel acted
last Saturday" said Mr.. Walsh, 'fheso
afildaylts We're pertinent TO the proceed.
ings. Therefore the bill OF exceptions
filed last Saturday reclted the action of
Judge Hurncy and cited those anidavlts
for Identification"
Mr.. Walsh then read Harney's order of
contempt and return on the same and.
on the ground that the return gave no
reason for holding Messrs. Forbis and
Evans In custody, he made motion for
their discharge.
Discussing this motion, he said:
There is nothing In this return which
indicates that, in presenting the bill Of
exceptions, any conduct on the part OF
Messrs Forbs and Evans was dsre-
sDectfnl to the court.
Not in Contempt Now.
Counsel may have been In contempt
l'I ming iHOSe hIHuhNllS the 1lfBt llfne
but not the second time The attorneys
believed those aliidavlts were pertinent;
they believe so still. / believed those am
dhvits were pertinent then; ! believe so
still, and ! am prepared To yndieate my
belief at any time" emphatically de-
clared Mr.. Walsh.
AT this point Associate Justice MIL
burn interrupter with The remark:
I'm not sure that your remarks are
pertinent now"
Mr.. Walsh finished his argument by
stating that he was willing to go into
The question of the relevancy of the afii-
davits If court deemed II necessary.
Then Judge Lindsay representing
Judge Harvey, began the statement of
his case. Judge Harney's return" said
Mr.. Lindsay, "recites fully what oc-
CURED. This judgment of contempt is
valid and cannot be attacked In this pro-
ceedlng. All the court is required TO
do Is to return what occurred In my
opinion. you cannot go into the question
of evidence here"
In support of his position he quoted
n FORMER order of the Montana supreme
court.
we submit" continued Mr., Lindsay,
That the attitude of counsel, notwith-
their high standing at the bar
is a contempt Of court. On a certain day
Judge Harvey ordered and directed the
aiildaYits in question to be stricken from
the files and returned them TO COUNSEL;
but Notwithstanding that order, at
torneys for plaintiff presented for
second time those, same afiidavits."
At this point he quoted section 200 Of
Continued on Page Three.)