The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-01-26
Cut Out Evidence to
Prove Hecla Di-
rectors Negligent
HEAR FRAUD CHARGE
Ruling of Judge Huneke is a
Fatal Blow to This Unwar-
ranted and Malicious Case

1.-THE Day-Smith balloon received a
severe puncture Tuesday after
noon which promises to result in
a complete collapse of the action
brought against the Hecla and Bunker
Hill mining companies to prevent the
ratification of the contract to purchase
the Star mine After listening to ar
gument that consumed almost two
days, Judge Huneke made a ruling
which practically eliminates all tes-
timOny offered to prove that the Star
is without value, and which reduces
the hearing to the question of fraud
directed at the Bunker Hill & Sullivan
company. and as to whether the action
of the Hecla directors in acquiring a
half interest in the Sullivan Mining
company. which will operate the Star,
was ultra wires. The argument began
Monday morning and was on the ques-
ton of admitting evidence to prove
that the Star mine is worthless in sup
port of the contention of plaintiffs that
the directors of Hecla were negligent
and acted without sufficient investiga-
ton in agreeing to join Bunker Hill in
the purchase of the star. and that
their negligence amounted to a breach
of trust. The argument was made by
John c. Higgins and w. II. Plummer
for plaintiffs and Senator George Tur-
ner and John =. Gray for the defense.
The authorities cited on both sides
were numerous. and the argument ex-
tended from 3: 80 Monday morning I'M
til about in the afternoon Tuesday.
At that time Judge Huneke stated that
he would like to prepare his ruling in
writing with care and accuracy. but |
would hardly feel at liberty to delay |
the trial to do so. and would give his |
conclusions at once.
The Complaint.
Judge Huneke stated that the COM
plant as it now stands sets forth two |
causes of action. One cause of action |
alleges fraud on the part of Mr.. Nc |
Carthy and the Bunker Hill & Sullivan /
company in entering into a contract |
to purchase the star, and the other I
cause was negligence on the part of
Hecla directors in approving the con-
tract. Taking up the question of evil !
dence that should be heard in cOnnec-
ton with these causes. Judge Huneke |
said:
"As against the Bunker Hill & Sulli-
van Mining company, the relief sought |
is the cancellation of the contract; |
and, manifestly, the only ground upon
which the contract could be cancelled
would be the ground of fraud, or some
other equitable ground which is not
alleged here. Manifestly, negligence is
not ground for the cancellation of /
contract So that unless there is shown
here evidence of fraud on the part of
the Bunker Hill & Sullivan company
in the procurement of this contract
with the Hecla to purchase half in
terest in the Star property, there
would be no cause of action against
the Bunker Hill & Sullivan and the /
action would have to be dismissed as
to it,"
Mr.. Higgins here called attention of
the court to the ultra wires charge, to
which Judge Huneke replied that this /
had not been introduced in the argu-
ment, and that of course if the con-
tract is ultra wires, the contract Will
fall. Further discussing the charge OF
fraud. the court said: "Of course, II
would follow then that if the contract
between the Bunker Hill and Hecla |
companies was not tainted by fraud
and that the Bunker Hill & Sullivan
should be dismissed from the case
then the contract would not be can
celled; that would make it an existing
contract between the Hecla and Bun
ker Hill companies"
Court Defines Breach Of Trust.
Upon the charge that the negligence
of Hecla directors constituted breach
Of trust, Judge Huneke gave this CON
crete definition: "A breach of trust Is
a failure on the part of the trustee TO
exercise his good faith. his judgment
upon any particular matter that is I'M
der consideration; and if he fails TO
exercise his Judgment in that way.
that would be a breach of trust ana II
that is shown by the evidence, then
court of equity would enjoin the fur
Their prosecution of that enterprise
whatever II might be.
NOW. with reference to the evidence
in this particular case, / think nave