Show MUST MUSI ANSER For Tor or Contempt of o Court Cour In this thu th HoMon And ul CI San Francisco March United States circuit court of ot appeals today ik lidded not lot to purge of Ir f contempt F I Augustus l II 11 I alli Alfred Ifred Franis but hit to hold them subject to tl the orders of the circuit court of ot I Montana The rino opinion wan WIK w written by U United Circuit W s W Morrow mil 11 concurred In by I hi Judges Gilbert GilI nod HOPS HO and was rendered In the noted CURB of or et al nl agaInst t the tho Hutto Huto md Consolidated MInIng corn com COl Tho I Iio matter decided was WIS a n writ of cr or erro orIon rot Ion ro directed to tho th circuit court of Moo Mon Montana titan tana to review nn an I order of nf f that court Adjudging and iund his IliA partners guilty of ot contempt of court In II violat violating log ing an Ito 11 order of tho tine court permitting the InspectIon insertion and 1101 Ild survey Iule of o certain I mining nil a I ag claims cia inns In I it Montana i on t a na naOn I On May 17 the Butte Hutto end 01 Huto 1108 flos flosI os oston ton I on Consolidated Mining l In in g company corn lan filed fileda fell fellI II I a it I bill Iii ii of equity ti In the tho t ii e Montana nut circuit ci rca It court against the Montana Ore Pur Par Purchasing chasing ii SI ll ii g company I 1 1 Chill hl h II I Gold noll 30 Id Mining iI I ci a company r fly John n I arCh iii a iss sn rt L Ii I and Carlos Carios Wat field as us 11 de tie defendants to tc enjoin them from extract lOg Ing hI tires ores from frol ruin the Michael Ichael mini inline of or which the Hutto and Ild claimed to be Inn I tine the owner oler Proof In justification ju of their action was IO tiled Hied by hy the defend defendants ants a a ts but ha t an no ni Injunction I mij anne I I on which win Ich In is still st Ill Illin In force foce Oice was nl On Oa Oct 1 1003 1 03 tine the and amid Boston BoMon company n a petition to the tho court stat stating log ing that tIne the Injunction hud had boon knott his associates tiled filed fileda l hil a it I denial ii Ia I After A C see ia I other at her legal lell I I pro tine the case fame comic to trial and 1 anti ami his partners wem sero found guilty of contempt of court court From 1 this order oriler a n writ of ot error was WIH vrn allowed In Iii II his opinion the tl writ Judge J hl go Morrow Ionn to mild an Ill Id The 1 h o complainant 1111 I an at atIs l I Is simply si ma ply asking as k I a g to be hI allowed I ii to tl t n pro protect plo tort his mis hil own in property nail rights It I i I would oun Id ho bo n a miserable ml in le ruble to II lire of o jus iris I I tire tiro tr If the tho court lia hlf hintS tint not the power pOlO I to 10 I a o proceeding obedience to Its 18 orders In such sucha luch lucho The conclusion we WI reach Is II that the tho judgment of or it tho contempt of at court 1111 which thi th appellants seek ell to have re no renewed 11 upon tho tim writ of ot error orO IH II a judgment In II a n civil 11 proceeding that It I Is IH and coercive In inn II its 11 execution culon and that It I has haK been en eli entered el by h the court for tor the th purpose of enforcing thu rights of oC the tine com complainant Ol Ilni I inn at Judicially I c in Ii y determined in ed In II I a Its IM I Is 1111 Hint t ii a t the t Inc appellants ii in are ort a re sub nub jt ct to Its Il terms and amid condition U It I that It Ils Is ti a 1 judgment lt that can cannot Rim not ill t be II I reviewed rev upon ni P ii this t hi I a writ rI t of ot a ato er error r to r and I a lt lid tho I mu writ of ot ti f error Is I there Corn dismissed II nt at iii costs |