The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-05-13
FEDERAL HECLA CASE
COEUR O'ALENE MAY, 81
RENEW MOTION TO RAISE FROM
HEcLA WORKINGS-MARSH
ALSO ENTERS.

Another move in the apex litiga-
aion between the Federal Mining &
Smelling company and the Hecla Mi
ming company will be made before
Judge DIETRICH in the United States
district court ait Occur d'Alene on
May 81, when the Federal company
will renew its application for an or
der permitting it to make a raise
from the underground workings of
the Hecla to the surface as a means
of establishing its apex contention.
This hearing was to have been held
today ait Moscow, where the federal
court is now in session, but by stip
ulation between the attorneys, A. H.
Featherstone for the Federal and
John p. Gray for the Hecla, it was
transferred to Occur d'Alene on the
date stated, Judge DIETRICH holding
court III chat city following the Mos
cow term. There seems to have been
considerable mfsapprehension in
connection with the reasons given by
Judge Deitrich i'm denying the aPpli
cation OH Lllt II tQHi Ill NollAbelllg NNNAAe
i'm April, and in order to make his
ruling clear, the language of the court
lis given below Attorneys for the
Federal had cited the Tyler-Last
Chance case in support Of their mo-
ton In that case the court not only
directed that mining operations might
proceed under the direction of the
Last Chance company beneath the
surface of its claim, but directed that
the proceeds be impOunded, and fur
ther directed that the underground
workings he unwafered for the pur-
pose of enabling the plaintiff the Ty-
Ter Mining company, to make inspec-
tion."
Denied Without Prejudice.
Continuing, Judge DIETRICH Said Il
am inclined to think that that case
would be "a precedent for granting the
relief asked at the present time i'm this
case: THAT lis to say, the court would
have the power Ito proceed with the
parties aus they now stand, and would
have the power ITO grant the relief
prayed for by the plaintiff I ann in
clined ITO think. however, that the
court ought not to exercise its dis
erection i'm favor of the plaintiff UNI
der the present circumstances. Hf |
all the parties interested were parties /
to the suit l think I would be inclin- /
ed 10 grant the petition, if it could be
done in such a manner as not to seri-
ouslv interfere with the defendant /
company i'm its mining operations /
nrovided. of course. that 1T should be /
,,-itb,oi,t any possibility of loss to that |
compamy. But the showing of the re-
lation between the sO-called alleged i
claim belonging Ito the plaintiff com
many and the underground workings
haneat, the surface of the defendants 4
claim is so neager. and it being posi- /
hle If the case proceeds i'm its present
forn. for the Marsh Mines company
no bring another suit and ask for
practically the same Intermediate or
nrovisional relief. I don't think that
the court ought at this time to exer-
else it's discretion in favor of granting
that relief. If the Marsh Mines COM
T should consider very favorably the
petition. if, ais suggested by counsel
for plaintiff. the granting of it could I
be done without any injury or pre-
iudice to the defendant
ct think for these considerations
shall deny the relief prayed for, and
think shall also overrule the mo-
tion to the answer. But, as already
indicated. it is not to be inferred THAT
shall ultimately hold that the plain
tiff can not proceed with the action
in its present form. In fact, I am in
,lined to let you proceed with the. ac-
lion in the present form, but not to
grant you the provisional relief if you
10 nroceed in that way. If all the u
parties. upon the other hand, are
brought in. I shall be inclined to
grant you this provisional relief but
do not. think the defendant should