The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1903-09-30
MILES F|NLEN IS
ON WITNESS STAND
DENIES SALE OF MINNIE HEALY WAS
EROACHED PRIOR TO HElNzE
OFFICE MEETING.
CONTRADlCTS HEINZE MEN
First Witness for the Plaintiff at Trial
Tells Different Story From That
Of Preceding Witnesses.

the stand in Judge Clancy's court room this
afternoon, and told a different story to
that told by Hcinzcs witnesses at the trial,
including Henze.
Mr.. Finlen denied that the sale OF the
Minnie Healy mine by him to Heinzc had
ever been broached to him by any one or
had ever been thought OF by him, prior to
the evening he met Hcinze. Heinze's
brother, Judge McIIatten and John Mac
Ginnss, at Heinze's Office.
The evening in question, that of No
vember II, ISoS the evening Finlen left
for the East, and the evening Henze says
Finlen sold him the Minnie Healy mine
Testimony Differs.
Heinze and all OF the three other wit
nesses who were privy TO this meeting
testified that the meeting was the culmina
purchase of the mine.
Finlen declared on the witness stand
this afternoon that there were no negotia-
tions for the sale or purchase of the mine
from him prior to that and said he had
never dreamed Of such thing.
He testified emphatically that all of the
talks he had had with Heinze and Mac
Ginnss prior to that time were about a
suit which Heinze and MacGinniss wanted
him to bring against the Boston 4 Mon
tana company to close down the Leonard
mine. MacGinniss and Henze had tcsti-
fled point blank that the talks were about
the purchase Of Finlen's rights in the
Minnie Healy.
Finlcn also testified that il was Heinze
that asked him to the NJ o. p. office and
not MacGinnss, as MacGinnss had test-
fed.
He testified that when he was at the
McDermott hotel that evening he met
ileinzc there. and that Hcinze said that
he had heard Finlcn was going East that
evening. Heinze had said that he him
self also was going East that night, the
witness said, and that his mother and
uncle were coming through from Seattle
on their way East.
To Talk II Over.
Finlen testified that he had said he was
sorry he did not have a ticket over the
same road as lIenze, and then that Hcinze
asked him to come TO his Office that even
ing before he should leave for the East,
SO that they might again discuss the pro-
posed suit against the b. K NJ. com
pany.
At the opening OF the trial this morn
ing Mr.. Kelley, for the plaintiff. objected
to the proposed amendments to Henzes
cross-bils and answers in the case offered
by Judge McHatten last evening.
1--WE desire to object to the defendant,
Heinze's, request to be allowed to file
amendments to the pleadings he has hith-
erto filed in the case said Mr. Kelley.
I'VE object to the offer OH the following
grounds:
Plaintiff objects to the amendments
proposed by the defendant. +. Augustus
Heinze, to his counter claim and cross
bill filed herein on the a5th day OF April,
1900, and to his counter-claim and cross
bill filed herein on or about the goth day
OF January, 1907, upon the following
grounds:
That to allow said amendments would
not be in furtherancc OF justice or to pro-
tect the rights Of the parties; that the
same would be i'll derogaton OF the rights
Of the plaintiff, who has relied upon the
issues presented by the plcadings as they
stood at the time the case was
called for trial also for the rea-
son that the said amendments are
offered too late, and no excuse has
been shown to the court why the said
amendments could not have been offered
prior to the trial of the cause; also for
the reason that no notice has been given
to the plaintiff, and no excuse offered for
failure to do so; for the further reason
that the proposed amendments change the
issues Of the cause and come as a'matter
Of surprise to the plaintiff"
Mr.. Kelley added: Il want TO call the
attention of the court to the rule Of the
court so frequently invoked relative to
such matters. In the Hickey case, involv-
ing the Nipper mining claim If you re-
member your honor refused to allow
party to come into court and change his
pleadA<s just before trial
IF that is sound rule, and am of
the opinion that it is, there would be
stronger reason for refusing to allow
par.r to try his case on one series of
plcadings and then come in at the end Of
the trial and change the pleadings.
BY Supreme Court.
In this case the supreme court made
an observation concerning the proof and
the pleadings last July Counsel for the
defendant, inatcad of amending his plead
ings at that time, in July, when the mat
ter was made known to him. waits all
this time and comes in now to have his
pleadings amended.
1T may be contended that we have no
ground OF surprise, We are surprised.
We have right to reply upon surprise in
law at this time.
"Then, we cannot tell the effect Of this
change in the pleadings. Nobody can.
The changes in the pleadings are VOLT
minous, and there have been so many
alterations that it is almost an insuperable
task to go over these amendments and
discover what effect they will have.
Besides that, your honor, counsel has
made no proper showing emitting him to
this amendment. | submit, if your honor
please, that the request for leave to amend
the pleadings has come entirely too late
and is without just ground for its sup
port"
Mr.. Forbis then added other objections
to the granting Of permission to Heinzc
to amend his answer and cross complaint
in the case.
Mr.. Forbs said that when Judge Nc
Hatten had proposed the amendment yes