Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1873-05-01
THE ARGUMENTS
IN THE
Raymond-.Hermes Case.
LAST DAYS ARGUMENT.


Judge Mesick did not attempt to de- |
lend Hearst as nm innocent purchaser or
10 denyi that he was in full collision
with the other conspirators. But they |
have conceded nothing in the trial of the |
rase--inch by inch they have fought for
all Their vantage ground. He knew he
could not be shielded in the face Of the
evidence Of his implication.
Judge Lake tried to get around it by say
ing they did not expect the record evil
dence to be brought into Court-the
deeds by which Hearst is proven to be
Lightner sin the mire"-or they would
have been prepared to meet it. And this
is the lame and impotent way. the only
way, the able and ingenious counsel on
the opposite side have met the over
whelming proof of Hearst's COM
plicity! II ever case was well prepared
and skillfully managed by counsel for
the defense, this one has been--if ever
witnesses were well drilled, Hearst,
Lightner and Perley have been. Light
ner swore that he did not let Hearst 60
into the mine until after the fire; Hearst
swears that he did not go into the mine
before the fire; and Perley says he did
not talk with Hearst before the
fire. Gentlemen, without charg-
ing these gentlemen with perjury,
but charitably attributing these
statements on the witness-stand to
the frailty of memory, must say this
was all q fiction. They could not stand
cross examination; the fact comes out,
in spite of all their ingeniously concur
ring testimony, that Lightner, Perley,
Hearst and McCannon, in conclave
assembled had arranged and planned the
whole scheme before moving to purchase
the Monitor title. They. first assail Ca
hills evidence, but in the face of the doc
umentary proof, they had to weaken on
that. Lightner says "Col. Raymond will
have to stand it, and you keep silent,
Cahill, and you will leave this camp
wealthy man." Why was Cahill to keep
quiet? II they were bona fide purchasers,
why skulk in the dark and fear the light
of day? Even Mesick, who can split
hair 10. 900 times any hour in the twenty
four, did not dare to vindicate Hearst
or it would have been better for Hearst if
he had not attempted to do so. The
only proof he could furnish of Hearsts
innocence was that he had got 1000 Of
the money of the Raymond & Ely Com
pany by tsmpering with their tamperable
agents. They try to make out some kind
Of an abandonment of the ground in dis
pute by the Raymond Il Ely Company,
because We waited year while they were
sinking their shaft without saying any
thing There are two answers to this,
first, any one has right to dig down
into the barren rock-as Mr.. Perley says
and there was no legal way We could
stop them until they struck our ledge;
and as soon as they had done that We
Immediately took steps to recover. We
have not, under the law, slept minute
on our rights. And Mesick argues that
notice to individual stockholders is not
notice to the corporation. Did Light
ner and Perley, our true and faithful
agents, who had charge of the property,
ever notify the company of the tres
pass? Was not Lightner showering down
letters on the Secretary of the Company,
thicker than leaves in Valambrosa,
and did he not studiously avoid giving
any warning OF the great robbery that
was in contemplation? Then the Com
pany was wholly unnotified. But it is
unnecessary for me to fight this case on
technicalities. We can win on its
merits. They say they told Colonel
Raymond in 1871 that they had located
the Hermes. And how did they tell him
Perley told him sit is located by our
boys-it is located in the interest Of the
Raymond & Ely Company Lightner
writes, sit is located, but by our friends.
and can never conflict with the Raymond
and Ely company. And in this design
ing, artful way, he was lulled into Sc
curity by his own confidential agents.
Instead Of imparting to him notice, he
was Intentionally thrown off his guard.
They tell you the Raymond & Ely
Company are debarred from setting up
their legal rights in this action, because
in the answer in the McDermott case,
drawn by Mr.. Perley as attorney for the
Raymond 4 Ely Company, the validity
Of the Panaca title is denied. Reasd
authority showing that admissions OF
counsel in one suit can not be used to
prejudice the client interest in another. ]
But the fact would have no weight, even
if it were admissible in evidence. That
answer Mr.. Perley. wilfully and deliber-
ately, and while drawing large salary
as the company's attorney, prepared and
got the officers of the company to sign
under the form Of an oath, in order to
carry out the wicked design of breaking
the most valuable OF the titles he
had engaged himself, as a sworn at
torney, to guard and protect. Bull, the
President of the Company, testities that
he was never in Pioche-that he knew
nothing Of personal knowledge in regard
to the Panaca title-that he signed his
name because Mr.. Perley told him to,
and he reposed confidence in him as the
attorney Of the corporation. And why
did he wait for three days to get Colonel
Raymond to sign it, when it would have
been as perfect and complete without the
Colonel's STANDARDIZATION the name OF
any one else representing the Company
would have had the same legal
effect2 And why. il he had really in
tended to be Of service to his employers,
did he ever write that answer? He had
two impregnable pleas to oppose to the
complaint-lst, want of juri sdiction, as
the McDermott case was brought in o
California Court; and, second, the Ray.
mond & Ely Company were innocent
purchasers, without notice. But, gentle
men of the jury. the world can have
no doubt of Mr.. Perley's motive. From
August LIST, 1871, he has wilfully, delib-
erately and in violation Of the law and
his sacred duty, secuted, decried
and tried to pick flaws in the Panaca
title. As is shown by the McDermott an.
swer itself, he was advising theRaymond &
Ely Company against their best interests.
Reads afidavits Of President Bull and
Secretary Moulder to the effect that they
signed the McDermott answer ON inform
alton impaired by Perley.] Every state
ment that goes to the Raymond 4 Ely
Company from Perley is prejudiced,
conflict between interest and duty. He
tries to prove that the Panaca shaft was
not sunk under the Panaca title; and
what reason does he give? Why, simply
this--that he, as attorney for the Ray.
mond & Ely Company, had ignored