The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1903-12-19
Heavy Conditional Fines,
Aggregating $4,000,
Put on by Court.
MUST Open UP MINES
Fines Will Be Imposed if
Inspectors Are Not
Allowed to Enter.
SPECIAL TO THE INTER MOUNTAIN.

held that Il. A. Heinze, the Montana
Ore Purchasing company. the Johnstown
Mining company, J. II. Trerse and
Albert Frank were in contempt OF the
order OF inspection made by Judge
Knowles in the Michael Dewitt -Rarus in
spection case and that they must comply
with the order of the court forthwith or
be fined in large amounts. The court said
that the order Of Judge Knowles must be
complied with on a certain day next week,
to be fixed later in the day by the
complainants, the Butte & Boston
company, otherwise I. A. Heinze
would be fined $4,000; ]. II. Trerise
$500 and Albert Frank $500. The
failure to pay these fines, which become ef-
fectiye in case the order OF Judge
Knowles is not obeyed. the court said
would mean in the marshal conhning them
in the Lewis and CLARKE county jail until
the fines we're paid.
Court Scores Counsel.
In passing on the matter Judge Beatty
severely scored the defendants attorney.
He said he never heard of such thing
as an attorney advising his clients to disc
hey an order Of court. Such things he
said would lead to anarchy.
Judge Beatty's language in rendering his
decision was scorching in its characteriza-
ton of the defense. His opinion of the
testimony Of Heinze himself, given ycster-
day, when Heinze swore to lack OF
knowledge of and connection with certain
of his companies is best given in the terms
OF the judgment. which holds Heinze as
chiefly responsible.
In Bad Faith.
The court held that the defendants had
acted in bad faith throughout and flagrant-
" had violated the orders of the court. 1t
pointed out the weakness of the defense
that the orders had not been. properly
served and declared that the defendants
had "ample notice" OF the order. In fact,
the remarks OF the court were scathing in
their description OF the behavior OF the
defendants.
Judge Beatty said in part: "The record
in this case develops a state of affairs
rather surprising to me- An order made
by the court was not obeyed. 1t was fol-
lowed by a subsequent order which also
was not obeyed and upon which this con-
tempt charge is based. have always seen
orders Of the court obcyed. Hence it is
rather surprising to me to see not only one
order, but two orders disobeyed.
1T seems to me that the complanants
have made every effort to have the order
enforced 1t may be that they had their
doubts about the defendant complying with
the second order after the first had been
tisobeycd, but | do not see that they did
not seek to have it carried out.
There have been several defenses made.
One is that the defendants acted in good
faith. | hardly see how it is consistent
with the facts before u.s. cannot see that
If the defendants had been disposed to act
in good faith they could have avoided the
service OF these orders.
They say they had no legal notice.
Their chief point, in fact, is that the order
was not served on them. Is that de-
fensc?
1T is an established rule that the party
is bound whether or not he has seen an
order in an injunction proceeding, and
why should not the same rule prevail here?
! think it is the duty of a aw-abiding
citizen, when he knows an order has been
issued applying to him, to attempt to learn
what that order is and not to avoid that
knowledge.
AN order of the court has all the force
and dignity OF the law and it is the law.
Our ignorance of law is no excuse for
any violation of that law. | do not think
that the parties are justified upon the de-
fense of no service and think all had sufi-
cent notice to bind Them.
]. ]. Mediation was not in court, but
r. B. Smith, the other attorney for the
defendant, was there, and he said he
would probably prepare and present to the
court some time this afternoon, notice
of appeal,
Motion to Discharge.
At the conclusion of F. A. Heinze's tes-
timony in the contempt hearing before
Judge Beatty yesterday afternoon J. ].
Mediation and r. B. Smith for the defend
ants moved that the defendants be dis
charged on the ground that no case had
been made out against them. They con-
tended that the action of the defendants
prior to November 3, the date of the is
suance of the order of inspection by Judge
Knowles, could not be counted against
them because the contempt proceedings
were predcated upon that order.
The attorneys started to argue upon the
motion when Judge Beatty informed them
that if they had any evidence to offer he
would like to hear it before passing upon
the motion. ]. H. Trerise was called to
the stand to briefly testify after which the
arguments were resumed, the defense de-
cining to offer more evidence. After the
attorneys for the defense had exhausted
their reasons for asking for a dismissal
Mr.. Forbs addressed the court, saying that
the state of affairs developed was some
what appalling.
When the orders were made the Johns
town Mining company was unknown, but
as soon as it was, Judge Knowles included
.t