The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-03-31
COURT
S0AKS HEINZE
Butte Mining Man Fined
$4,000 For Contempt.
MORE LITIGATION IN SIGHT
FINE MAY BE APPLIED as PART
PAYMENT OF DAMAGES.

D Of this court is that +. Augustus
Heinze, Josiah H. Trerise and
Alfred Frank stand guilty OF contempt
or court IN cause No. 20, and that
Carlos Wardeld is not guilty and is
discharged. AS punishment therefor L
viii impose a fine of $4,000 upon +.
Augustus Heinze, 81. 900 upon Alfred
Frank and $1,000 upon J. II. Trerise.
This money 10 be deposited in the
First National Bank of Butte. Mont.
by IL O'Clock tomorrow Thursday
morning, TO the credit of George
Sproule, clerk OF the United States
court for this district or the defen-
dants are 10 be taken into custody
by the United States marshal and con-
veyed TO Helena, there to be confined
until the fines are paid"
Judgment on First Count.
The above was the judgment Of
Judge Beatty this morning in the
United states court, when he passed
upon cause No. 20, an action brought
by the Butte & Boston Mining com
pauy against the above defendants
for entering the Michael Davitt lode
claim and extracting therefrom valu-
able ore, on what is known as the
enargite vein. 1t was the Judgment
in one Of three counts.
Heinze and the other defendants
were in the court room and heard
the decree Of the court Net a mus
Gle moved in the features OF AR.
Heinze, while Trerise smiled family
and Frank hung his head.
Mr. Heinze came into court a few
minutes before judgment was an
nounced and remained standing near
the door. The Judgment pronounced
applies only TO the first count against
the defendants. there remaining two
in
IN cause a. In both these actions
carlos Warfield was acquitted and dis
charged, while HeinZe. Trerise and
Frank were each found guilty.
Hangs Over Heinze's Head.
Judge Beatty's reservation of de-
cisiOn on two Of the three counts on
which Heinze was charged with con-
tempt has the effect Of keeping an inn
prisOnment sentence hanging over
Heinze. Judge Beatty announces,
however. that there viii be no impris-
onment if the fine is paid and there
are no further violations. But his or
der regarding a permanent inspection
board OF the mines, the court says. is
final Any infraction viii be severely
punished The Amalgamated and
Heinze interests are trying to agree.
at q conference this afternoon. on q
board Of inspectors.
A L. Frank is superintendent Of the
JOhnstOwn Mining company and j. H
Trerise is superintendent OF The Rarus
mine.
Judge Beatty was called I'm from the
United States district court of Idaho
by Judges Knowles TO try the case.
IL is not thought any mine viii be
closed by the decision or any men
thrown out of work.
History of the Case
The litigation which resulted in f.
Augustus Heinze being fined today is
% four years standing and Is over
the Michael Davitt claim, adjoining
both the Rarus mine, owned by Eeinze.
and the Pennsylvania, owned by the
Copper company. In the
latter part Of 1899 the claim was put
under injunction by Judge Knowles
Of the United States district court.
both parties 10 the suit being enjoiued
pending decision as to title which de-
cision is still pending Up to June
Of last year both parties observed the
Then the Heinze forces.
owning the Rarus, it is alleged. be-
gan 10 mine the claim, in open viola
ton Of the courts injunction. Federal
inspectors appointed by Judge Knowles
were refused admittance to the Rarus.
they wished TO get into the
Davitt, even when guided by United
States Marshal Lloyd Then the cir
cult court judges called in Judge Beat
" to decide whether or not the orders
OF the federal court had been viO-
lated. Three weeks ago Heinze. Ire
rise and Frank were arrested by Mar
shall Lloyd, on Judge Knowles order.
after they had refused the marshal
and federal inspectors admission 20 the
mine. They were allowed 10 go on
parole until Judge Beatty could set
here.
Talk With Heinze Man.
Discussing the decision. ole Of
deinZe's superintendenJS sad;
For seven years we nave been try
ng TO get an appeal from the decision
y Judge Knowles. who enjoined US
rom working these ore bodies. The
,ase was twice tried in The federal
court; the first time Judge Knowles
instructed the jury TO decide against
Is. the jury was then locked up for
hirty-fye days, considered the judges
Instructions three days further, and.
lot obeying the courts order, was dis
charged. Then the Amalgamated Cop
Der company had a bin tried at Wash
ngton authorizing the transfer Of fed
raj cases. The case was then tried
1t Helena, lasted fifty days, and the
ury brought in a unanimous verdict
giving US the ore bodies. Ten months
ater Judge knowles reversed the YER
Lict because he alleged that the jury
night be Influenced by certain articles
appearing in the lOcaE newspapers
gainst the Standard OIL company. I'm
nediately we asked Judge Knowles 10
ither vacate the order of Injunction or
o continue il. That was the only way
O make the matter appealable to the
ircuit court. If he vacated it they
ould appeal; if he continued it we
Ould appeal; If he allowed the mat
er 10 stand there would be no ap-
zeal, which would leave US with no
edress.
Ownership to Be Decided.
Our counsel considered we were
njOined in a proceeding based upon
n improper complaint, and this is the
oint we wanted TO bring before the
ppellate court. but as long as Knowles
efused to make any order of any kind
here was nothing which could be
rought before the court of appeals.
Under the circumstances there was
othing to do but 10 raise the point in
his way. Judge Beatty's decision us
lat he viii not 60 behind the court $
r6er and ascertain what il is based
pOn. However, now we are in a no
ition 10 appeal By making this move
'e believed we might ger courts to
ass upon the point Of law concerned.
We have not done so. but we have won
he right TO appeal should we main
ain the injunction was improperly is
ued. The entire question involved
M Law "a