The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1903-09-18
REVIEW TESTIMONY
OF PREVIOUS TRIAL
HElNZE CROSS-ExAMlNED IN THE
HINNIE HEALY-FlNlEN'S pos
SESSION DISCUSSED.
OLD EVIDENCE IS CHANGED
Asked to Bring Records Of the Minnie
Healy Transactions For Inspec-
ton Into the Court.

examination at the hands of Attorney
John +. Forbis in the Minnie Healy trial
today. Mr.. Forbis spent large part of
the time reading over excerpts from the
testimony given by Heinze at the trial be-
fore Judge Harney, and asking him to
verify those statements with which he still
agreed and to explain such differences as
appeared between the evidence given by
him at this trial and that at the trial here
tofore.
The question Of Miles Finlen's connec-
ton with the Minnie Healy nine, which
Heinze called nominal posse ssion," after
the 2Ist Of November 1903, the date the
alleged oral contract for the sale of the
mine was said TO have been made by him,
wasagonc into very exhaus,vey.
Kept Witness Busy.
This matter received much Of Mr.. For
bis attention in the forenoon, and the
witness was kept at the work Of verify
ing, altering, explaining and annoting the
old evidence OH this point during most Of
the forenoon session.
In the afternoon Mr.. Forbis took up
the question Of the alleged understanding
between Heinzc and Finlen as to the
notice Finlen should have in case Heinzc
finally decided not to take up the bonds
and leases and backed out OF the alleged
contract.
Heinze said that the condition which he
called the nominal possession" by Fin
len of the Minnie Healy mine lasted from
November 81, 1898, the date Of the alleged
oral contract for the purchase OF the mine,
till February IS, 1899. It was terminated
then, the witness said, by giving orders to
stop the orders that were going to Finlen's
Office.
AT the afternoon hearing he said that
the reason he did not take possession of
the mine at the start was because it would
have been illogical ON his part to take
possession of it when Finen was to bring
suit against the Boston & Montana
company and allege possession in himself.
At His Pleasure Only.
The understanding was that if anybody
inquired as to who had possession of the
mine Finlen was TO say that it was he
who had possession but that Finlens pos
session depended absolutely ON his con-
sent. The agreement was to last at his
pleasure only.
Also there was to be no liability in
CURED Oh his part il he backed out OF the
contract to take up the bonds and leases.
When the case opened in the morning
Mr.. Forbis continued cross examining Mr..
Heinze and took up the question of when
af 3, L.
delivered by Fincn to Heinze.
Finen Went East.
"Mr. Heinze, Mr.. Finlcn departed
for the East the day of the conference,
when you say he sold the Minnie Hcaly
to you, November II, did he noti" Mr..
Forbis said.
"He said he was going the witness
replied.
did you see him here after that?"
No, | went East myself"
What did he say about your taking
possession Of the property"
"He said, 1 turn everything over to
you. You can take possession any time
you want to-"
.'He didn't take you down to the mine
and put you in possession there!"
mo"
"Hc didn't give you written order?'
mo, he gave me verbal order
"On whom"
"On Mr.. Wishon. Wishon was Finlen's
superintendent at the NINE"
Did Mr.. Finlen ever put you in actual
possession of the property!'
"He did them
when he gave you that verbal order?'
"Yes."
ta E..,1n
about the Minnie Healy after November
2I, 1902"
II don't think So"
"You saw him afterward, did you not
that year,"
u saw him at the legislature"
Ever speak to him at an?"
, "Just to pass the time of day.
"What was said between you as to
when the contract was to take effect?"
"The agreement transfer was to take
effect at once. But out taking actual and
notarious possession was to be deferred
till after the suit against the Boston &
Montana company was brought. We~were
not to go into the mine and begin actual
operations until them"
"What was your understanding as to
when the contract was to take effcct?
WCT]d9kOf SUJCSt'ou SVCTTu'Cu.
Judge Mediation objected to the ques-
ton, saying it called for the witness
opinion.
objection is overruled. Go ahead and
answer the question" said the court.
Immediately" the witness replied
His testimony at the trial before Judge
Harney, where he said the transfer was
not to take place until after the suit was
brought, was read to him.
did you give that testimony at the
other trial?' he was asked. -.
II did," he replied
"Is that true?"
II don't think that applies to the same
matter-the delivery of possession he re-
piled.
"Why not?'
well, my testimony now is that the
contract was made then and there and the
various things were to follow in their or
der ca;d Heinze