The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-02-09


Plaintiffs Put in Expense Account.
L. +. Hanley, secretary of the Hecla
company was called by attorney for
plaintiffs and in response to question
said that Hecla had expended some
thing over S22 900 in connection with
the litigation up to January 1 and he
estimated that probably $4,000 had
been spent since that date.
p j. Maggy private secretary for
Eugene K. Day, took the stand and
presented duplicate copies of all ex-
penses incurred TO date by Mr. Day
and Mrs Smith in carrying on the lit
igation. The total was a little more
than $4,000. Upon cross examination
/ by Mr.. Gray, it was found that most
of this expense was incurred in samp-
ling and otherwise obtaining data
bearing upon the valuation of the
star. On motion of Mr. Gray both the
claim for attorneys fees and the eX-
pense account We're disallowed by the
court to which ruling plaintiffs took
exception. In the course of testimony
Mr. Maggy said that the expense OF
the litigation had been paid i'm proper
ton to the holdings of plaintiffs in the
Hecia, Mrs. Smith paying 10 per cent
and Mr. Day 25 per cent Assuming
that the fee of $4,000 will be paid by
plaintiffs when it is finally rejected
by the supreme court which il will be /
if the case ever gets there the total /
TO MA fnf g., do 10 10, H..
500 OOO of which Mrs. Smith will have /
the long end to the extent of $751; 900 .
While notice of appeal has been Civ
en-, the opinionn prevails along those
who have kept in close touch with the
case that the end has been reached
and that the case will never be heard
by higher court. The pretentious case
brought by Mr. Day and Mrs Smith
proved to be a perfect fiasco. and no
body knows it better than their own
attorneys, who will not be disposed to
incur the danger of further damage
to professional reputation by going to
'he supreme court.
Should Never Have Been Heard in
Court
The complete collapse of the case
brought by Mr. Day and Mrs. Smith -,
against President Mccarthy and the
Iecla directors and the Bunker Hill &
sullivan confirms the opinion express
I'd by this paper in the beginning, and =,
shared by the people of the Occur a. &
Alene district generally. that it was
ifhnnf ba 10
star deal was used as a mere pretext
md that the real purpose was to dis =,
redit the Hecla management and di- -,
ectors in the hope of gaining control :
# the company. After a trial lasting r.
hree weeks during which only evil
ence of the plaintiffs was presented =
nd not near all of that. the case was l.
practically thrown out of court upon
he failure of plaintiffs to make
howing to support any one of the
harges set out in their COM :.
laints. They lost on their own evil
ence before defendants had an oppor-
unity to make a counter showing, and =
was doubtless fear of the evidence =
hat they knew the Hecla and Bunker -,
ill were ready to produce that caused
hem to abruptly rest the case and =,
)rmally abandoned the charges
hey had made. They feared the ~
xposure that would certainly have
cen made if the case had continued
the Introduction of the de- III
,ndants' side of the case. The result -
T the trial has been hailed with de- al
ght by the people of the Occur d. u
lene district, for it is really their vic III
Try as much as it is a victory for the oI
celia and Bunker Hill. If through II
~ miscarriage of justice this mali 'S
Gus scheme had been successful. it ue
Guild have stopped the development III
another great mine. blocked the es- We
blishment of a great zinc reduction ~
Id refining plant at Kellogg, the ben CIV
its of which will be felt in every co
rt of the district and possibly in the 'h
d placed the Days in control of Hec At
What Day control of Hecla would #
can need not be told; it is only nee tiff
sary to point to the Hercules and an
Imarack. Dav controlled mines. Su
,sed down for almost a year without No
gard to the rights of stockholders tie
d without consideration of the well aft
re of the people of the community PHI
pendent upon them. TIL
INDICATED by the Court. pro
L is unfortunate and grievously Val
ong that men of high character. free f.
IN wrongdOing can be publicly ma "I'
ned and slandered through the plo
lrts, and still be without redress ol
zen the charges have been proved .'o'
thOut a basis of fact Exoneration D.
the courts cannot wholly undo -"
wrong committed in placing 'es
IN charges on a public record us
4 the publicity that naturally fol- ''7'
VS.. In the case of James F. Nc 1t
rthy. president and manager of the WI
ella company. who was made the '7''
eff target in this action he required It's