The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1923-09-27
BLACK BEAR CASE
FINDING OF JURY
NOW UP TO THE COURT
Jury Acts in Advisory Capa
city, List of Questions and
Answers Returned
NOW UP TO THE COURT

A n UNUSUAL proceeding was
~ adopted, at least so far as this
~ county is concerned. in the
action brought by John C.
Glahe, secretary treasurer of the Black
Bear Mines company against Fl. }.
Arnett, former secretary of the COM
pany Mr.. Glahe applied to Judge
Featherstone of the district court, for
an alternative writ of mandate, COM
handing II. J. Arnett to appear and
show cause why he should not be re-
quired to turn over the books and files
of the company to Mr.. GIahe. The
case came on for hearing last Friday
morning. Therett Towles and Franklin
Phrman appearing as attorneys for the
plaintiff and w. II. Hanson and H ].
Hull for the defendant. After hearing
argument the motion of attorneys for
defendant to summon a jury to hear
the case and submit findings advisory
to the court in reaching a final deci-
sion was allowed. 1t is stated that
this is the first time that this method
of procedure has ever been adopted in
the courts of this county, although it
has long been authorized by the laws
of the state. Under this method the
jury. instead of returning a verdict
on the issue involved, has submitted
to it a series of questions covering the
essential points in the controversy
after hearing the evidence and argu-
ments the same as in any ordinary
trial. and while the answers are not
binding upon the court in reaching a
decision, they are submitted for the
consideration of the court
Submitted to the Jury.
II was not unit Tuesday afternoon
that the case, or rather the question
naire, was submitted to the jury, and
after wrestling with the questions all
night, the jury submitted it's findings
yesterday morning. AS the contest for
the control of the Black Bear COM
pany of which the court action is the
outgrowth, is a matter of much local
interest, and as the hearing on the
application for the writ of madate is
out of the ordinary, the Miner gives
the questions and answers substant-
tally as they were submitted and re-
turned by the jury. Questions were |
prepared by attorneys for both sides
covering practically the same ground, !
and to the lay mind the answers are |
about as clear as Eyes, we have no |
bananas" The findings of the jury |
follow;
Questions by Plaintiff.
1. Did stockholders owning one-haif |
or more shares of the stock of the |
Black Bear Mines company petition
defendant II. j. Arnett on the 10Th day
OF July. 1928. to give notice Of meet
ing of stockholders?
Answer: No.
3 Did said defendant refuse to give
such notice?
Answer: No
g. Did stockholders owning one-half
or more shares of the stock of the
Black Bear Mines company on July
10 authorize r. E. Weniger to give
notice of a meeting of stockholders?
Answer: No.
4. (a) Did r. E. Weniger cause to
be published a notice of the stock
holders meeting for two weeks prior
to August 3, and OBJ did he cause
copies of the notice to be mailed to
each stakeholder?
Answer: (a) Yes 90 No.
S. Did stockholders owning more
than one-half of the shares of the
stock of the plaintiff corporation meet
on August 3?
Answer: Yes.
6. Did said stockholders elect by bal
lot Ben f. Bush. A. D. Wallace, A. A.
Whaley, II. j. Rossi and r. f. Weniger
directors of plaintiff corporation?
Answer: Yes
Z. Did the five persons mentioned in
the foregoing interrogatory meet as
board of directors of the plaintiff cor
poration and elect the plaintiff John
c. Glahe secretary and treasurer
thereof
Answer: Yes.
Questions by Defendant.
pa How many shares of stock of the
Black Bear Mines company were re-
presented by petitions of stockholders
presented by r. e. Weniger to H. j.
Arnett requesting said Arnett to call
a meeting?
Answer: 513.sss.
ga How many shares of the stock
of the Black Bear Mines company were
represented by the petition of r. f.
Weniger authorizing him to call a
special meeting of the stockholders of
said company at the time he issued
the call for said meeting July 10?
Answer: 515,6S2.
ia. Did defendant H. J. Arnett re-
fuse to call a stockholders meeting