The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1903-10-09
LAWYERS TALK TO THE COURT
DURING THE WHOLE OF THIS
FORENOON ON CASE,
BRIEFS ARE TO BE FILED
John F. Forbis Appears for the Finlcn
Side and Judge McHatten and C.
r. Leonard for Heinze Side.

fendant, and in which the trial took place
before Judge Clancy about two weeks ago,
were presented to the court today.
Attorney John f. Forbs presented the
argument for the plaintiff, and Attorneys
{. r. Leonard and ]. ]. McHatten talked
for the Heinze side. The arguments oc-
cupied the court all the forenoon, and
were very interesting.
Judge Clancy limited the speeches to an
hour side, and Judge McIlatten and Mr..
Leonard each talked for half an hour,
and Mr.. Forbis talked for an hour.
There were quite a number of lawyers
and others present during the presentation
of the arguments, and much interest was
manifested in the same.
At the conclusion OF the arguments the
court gave the lawyers till next Wednesday
to file their briefs in the case.
Attorney c. X. Leonard opened the
argument for the Heinze side. He spoke
briefly occupying about half an hour
When the court opened Judge Clancy
said
Now, gentlemen, what time do you
want"
Il think about an hour will do" said
Mr.. Forbis.
Il believe about all hour or an hour
and half will suit me-" said Judge Nc
Hattcn.
ooh. guess an hour will be enough"
said the court to Judge McHatten. you
want to review that evidence of John
MacGinniss, Judge Mchatten.
Judge Mcllatten replied:
No; ! don't care particularly to speak
of that, because | believe it impressed
itself on the mind of the court"
I'll be very brief in my speech. leav-
ing the conclusion to Judge McHatten,"
said Mr.. Leonard in opening his argu-
ment.
Mr.. Leonard said that the supreme
court had said that there had been suffi.
cient evidence unobjected TO at the first
trial to sustain Judge Harney's findings.
so practically, in both the law and
the evidence, the supreme court decided
this case" said he
Mr.. Leonard said that the first question
was whether there had been. n contrac,
between Finlcn and Heinze, and the
second question was whether there had
been anything done to carry out the con
tract.
"The position we take is that the evi-
dence for the defendant is overwhelming.
There was almost no evidence TO sustain
the plaintiff. There are two stories, one
by Heinze and one by Finlcn. The cvi-
dence OF this controversy between them
covers the whole case" said Mr.. Leonard
Mr.. Leonard contended that Hcinze
A. 7. Heinze, MacGinniss and McHatten
all agreed that there was contract made
on November 81, 1898.
"lt was not written contract, but was
by oral agreement" said the lawyer.
He contended that Finlcn was to turn
over all his rights to the mine. lIeinzr
he said, was to develop the mine and 10
take up the bonds, il the developments
justified that step, and that the -four
Heinze witnesses agreed positively that
there was a contract to that effect.
He said there were no material discrep-
ancies in the testimony OF these witnesses,
and that the plaintiff signally failed TO
shake the witnesses on crosse examination.
No four men ever agreed in minor details
as to anything which they all saw or took
part in, he said.
Sir Walter Raleigh had illustrated that
when writing the history of England, he
said. Raleigh had witnessed an occur
called several other eye witnesses to de-
scribe it. They disagreed as to some mar
tiers, and Raleigh asked how he was 20
write correct history of England if the
witnesses to an occurrence not IS minutes
old could not agree upon its details.
Mr.. Leonard cited law, and other SINH
lar cases to uphold Heinze's position in
the suit.
I~I L..
addressing the court, and he occupied an
hour.
"May it please the court" said he,
there is no question but what the de-
fendant's counsel has gained wisdom in
the trials of this cause.
Judge McIiatten made different argu-
mcnt to that of Mr.. Leonard when he was
addressing Judge harney at the first trial.
The contention then was that Heinze
should have the specific performance or
a contract, and that there was contract
for the transference Of the property which
they were entitled to enforce.
after Mr. Walsh had argued at THAI
trial, Judge McHatten, driven from that
position, reccded to the position that
Finlen was estopped from denying the
contract" said Mr. Forbis.
Mr.. Forbis said the counter claim was
not an action in estoppel, but an afirma-
tive action for the specific performance Of
contract of agreement with Finlen.
"There is not an authority which holds
that an estoppel of one party is sufficient
to force the party to convey property to
another" said Mr. Forbis.
"If these parties cannot establish a
semblance of specific performance do
not see why they have asserted time and
again that the supreme court has decided
this case. If there is word in that d.
cision to that effect, wish counsel for
the defendant would point it out, and I
will take the greatest pleasure in reading
it to the court" said Mr.. Forbis.
Judge McHatten interrupted here, and
asked Mr.. Forbis to read paragraph five of
the supreme court decision reversing the
judgment of Judge Harney giving the
Minnie Healy mine to Heinze. Mr.. Fosbis
read the paragraph.
The paragraph said that there was suf-
fcient evidence 1inohiected to at the t,;,1