The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-07-25
MONTANA
HEINzE'S WATERLOO
MONTANA
The Supreme Court Remands the
Minnie Healy Case to the Dis
trict Court for Retrial.
The Nipper Mine Injunction Is Mod
flied and the Daily Bank
Bond Retained.

Special to The Journal.
Helena, Mont, July 25.-F. Augustus
He1nze was routed at every turn Of the
road yesterday, as in three important bat
ties his arch enemy, the Amalgamated
Copper company, carried off the honors
in no uncertain manner. The most i'm
portant: Of these. was in the Minnie Healy
case, which the supreme court ordered
remanded for new trial. The supreme
court also turned down in no uncertain
manner Heinze's application for an order
directing the Daily Bank and Trust COM
pany to substitute cash in lieu, Of Its
$125,000- certificated check deposited as
security on the Amalgamated %company's
bond in the Minnie Healy case, and as a
final blow the same court modified the In
junction secured by Heinze at Butte in
volving a portion Of the Nipper mine, one
Of Heinzes leading copper producers,
which is in dispute between. HeinZe and
the Amalgamated. 1t, was indeed Black
Friday for the young copper Napoleon.
While the supreme court decision re-
versing Judge Edward w. Harney's rul-
ing, denying new trial in the Minnie
Healy case, Is based both on the merits Of
the cause and charges of misconduct, by
far the greater portion Of the document
Is given up to misconduct charges. I;
In this portion of the decision Judge
Harvey receives a most severe castiga-
ton. The decision quotes; in full the
famous "Dearie" letter, alleged to have
been written by Mrs. Bracket: an en-
ploye Of Heinze's Montana Ore Purcha sing
company defendant in an action, to Judge
Harvey while he was presiding In. the
trial. In doing this the decision says tina
such matter would hardly be considered
proper In a court record except for, the
illusions it contains to financial assist
ance rendered by the writer to the judge,
a reminder of friendship which had been
extended to the judge by respondents in
this appeal prior to the Judges being
seated on the bench and similar subjects.
! None Of this,' says the court "could be
proper subject of communication be-
tween an outside party and the presiding
judge during the trial of a case
The court declares that Judge Harvey S
alleged answer to that letter, also con-
tanned in affidavits on file, is an open in
vitation to further discussion on the sub
ject 1t says that had this been a case
on trial before jury. like charges against
single juror would warrant any court
in setting aside a judgment. In this con-
nection the court quotes large number
of authorities referring to misconduct OF
Jurors. Continuing, the decision says:
whatever may be said as to the author
ship of the so-called "Dearie" letter, the
fact still remains that, tho Judge Harvey
had an opportunity to deny in no uncer-
tain terms his authorship of the answer
thereto, he failed to do so, and so long
as the record stands here it contains SO
many specific charges which are UNI
denied, and notably the authorship of that
answer, that we decline to accept as con-
elusive upon this court the statement of
the district Judge that he determined the
cause upon the law and the evidence I'M
Influenced by any other consideration
whatever"
The decision further declares that the
affidavit Of Harvey in reply to affdavits
charging him with misconduct is. not de-
MED. eff" says the court, Judge Har-
ney did not write the answer to the So
called Dearie' letter, he could have said
so in few words and positive terms. If
he did write that answer, that fact alone