Show WRIT OF ERROR R p b t D EN ENt f Bute Butte Mining Mining Magnate Is in Contempt of Court 4 FAilED TO OBEY INJUNCTION I I NOW OW HS TO TO FAC PACE BEAT BT J T TY OP OF I q qt t I ISan I San San Francisco March States cIrcuit court of ap appeals ls deIde decided pot to purge ot of toy 4 Augustus Josiah I Alre Alfred Pras Prams but to to hol them subject to the order orders of the circuit court of Montana The opinion was as written by States Circuit Judge W V W Wand Yo and concurred In by JUdges Gibert Gilbert and and ws was rendered in the not noted case se of Heinze et al agaInst the Bute Butte and ny Botn Boston MinIng Cr Corn The mater matter decided WI a a writ of oC er error Tor directed to the tho circuit court of oC Mon Ion lana tana to review an order ot of court a Heinze and his partners uly ot of contempt of COUt court In violat Irig Ing an order of the court permitting the ad and surey survey of mining claims In Montana On May Ii 11 1898 1808 the Butte and Bos Boston Boston ton Consolidated MIninG Mining company filed 4 bill of equit equity In the Montana circuit cour court te the Montana onta Ore Pur Purchasing chasing COmplO Chill Gold Mining company compan John ohn Edward L L Whitmore and Carlos CarIos Va eld as do de to enjoin them from extract extractIng InS Ing ores from the Michael Davit mine of f which te the Bute Butte and Boston claimed t b be the owner Proof In just Justification ol of action wa sas fe flied by the defend ints but an Injunction which 1 Is still 11 In force was wac granted On October I 1 13 the Bute Butte and Boston company presente presented n a pelton petition to the court stat L L S that the injunction hd been yb Helna Helne an and his hie associates filed fileda e a denia deniaL After several other legal pro proC C edings the Ce case came t to trial and Heinze and his partners were found guilty or of contempt of curt court From this order a wit writ of error was allowed In his opinion dl ml the wit writ J Judg Judge Morrow said Aid The he complainant b I simply to be allowed to asking aking t b pr pro his own property and and rights and andI I it would b be a miserable failure of ju jus tire If the court hu baa not the power to enforce norce obedience to It its orders In such uch sucha ucha a The he conclusion we rech reach Is that the judg judgment nt ot of the contempt of court court the appellants seek to have r re upon the present writ ot of error 1 a jUdgment In a a civil chon proc proceeding that tbt I 1 I Is remedial and coercIve In It Its and that I It has been en b by the court ourt for the purpose ot of enforcing rights of the corn com Judicially determined In it Its favor ad and that the appellants are sub jeet c to It Its term and con I It that It Is Ig a judgment that cn can cannot not be reviewed upon this writ of or er error ad and the writ writ of error I is therefore dimis dismissed ed at apPellants |