Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1874-05-27


which the suit II Brought.
SAN FRAscsco. May Ill r. NJ
This m~srninEs's papers contain an 40
count OF the following suits against
the Su,ro Tunnel. Eight complaints
were fIled on Tuesday In the Fifteenth
District Court BY the following min
Ing companies on the Comstock lode :
Crown Point. Chollar-P otosi, Gould
and Curry, Imperial. ovsrman, ophir,
Savage. and Hale aud Norcrosa against
the Sutro Tunnel Company, AdolPh
Su,ro. Henry X. Mitchell, Louis ia
min. Jr.. and VIM. ~. Stewart, to re-
scind the agreement between tho CON-
pany and the mines, 10 release the
mines from all lien by the defendants
aud to enjoin them from setting up
any claim or title upon said mines.
Similar complaints will be rlsd by the
following companies: California Sill
yer Mining Company, White & Mur.
ply. Best & Bslcher, Alpha, Bacon.
Gold Hill Quartz Mill aud Mining
Company, Confidence, Empire, yell
low Jacket, and Bslcher. Each COM
plant recitss that prior to the 4th day
OF February. 1865, said Sutro concsiv-
cd the project Of running a DRAIN
Ing aud ventilating tunnel from the
foothills OF Carson River Valley Into
the Coms,ock for the purpose Of dis
eovery and development Of the bodies
Of precious minerals, which BY the
laws, customs aud usagss then and
ever since prevailing In the State Of
Nevada, would on such discovery be-
come tho property OF said Sutro aud
hls associates, aud for tho purpose OF
inducing the aforesaid owners on the
Comsteck lode and other lodes to avail
themselves OF the advantages Of said
tunnel at prices to be agreed upon and
for other purposes. That, pursuant
to said project sutro procured
the passage by tho Nevada
Legislature Of an act granting the
right NJ way and authorizing A. Sutrs
aud his associates to cons,ruct a long
aud draining tunnel, approved Fsbru.
airy 4. 1865; tina, after the passage Of
the Act and before = day In SO, Sutro
aud other Individual defendants here
Ia named, and ID. +. Avery, deceased,
associated themselves together aud In
accordance with the terms OF the
aforesaid law. That on and before the
lat named day the mino OF plaintiff
was affected by the How Of water there
Ia and was Ia need Of better ventll-
alton and was supplied with hols,ing
works OF simple character and quite
limited power, and said Sutro aud his
associates represented to plaintiff that
they could complete said tunnel with
In the time named, In said October,
eight year. from the eth Of February,
1866. aud In accordance with other
terms and conditions thereof; aud that
the mine Of plaintiff would DO drain.
cd and ventilated aud access to and
from the said mine greatly facilitated
aud the labsr and expense OF plaintiffs
business be greatly reduced, aud the
plaintiff aud the said Individual de-
PENDANTS and tho said deceased Avery,
made a written agreement In relation
to the premises, q copy Of which 10
annexed to the complaint. And the
plaintiff further AYERS that on tho -day
Of 1861. at the request Of Individual
defendants, the plaintiff further ex-
tended the time In articles, frat, third,
fourth and nth, 20 that II should read
August, 1868, instead Of August,
1867, and plaintiff AYERS that Ii
hath In all promises on Its part
kept them, but that said defendants
did not keep tho covenants or promises
made la said agreement on their part;
that the defendant did not commence
the work on or before August, 1866.
nor prosecute the work with roason-
able energy or vigor. nor were tho
tunnels or drifts mentioned excavated
or completed or put In condition Ter
use, In accordance with the act or
agreement, by which they agreed to
simultaneously sink three shafts on the
line Of said tunnel; nor has the said
w.rk been performed continuously or
without interruption, although no I'M
ayoidsbis accident has happened In re-
ia,ion thereto ; that, on the contrary,
the little work that has been deae has
bean done fssbly, without energy and
with great intervals Of delay. And
plaintiff further AYERS that there has not
been subscribed, In good faith, or at
all, BY responsible or apparently re-
~sponslble persons, rs large q 'uin or
any SUN nearly so large As $3,0o0,000
for the said work, nor any SUN
sufficient to complete said work.
aud that Ell the Let day Of
August. 1858. there was not
expended 500. 600 or any other cen.
siderable sum, nor has there been ex-
pended after said fiscal year 500, 900
annually. or any sum aPproximating
that amount, and the said defendants
have no, furnished a full and true
sta,emsat or any other statement
whatever Of tho expenditures on the
work during all or any OF said years,
but Las wholly neglected to do 90;
and plaintiff further AYERS that the
completion Of the work has been un-
m~easurably delayed and without just
cause ; and plaintiff further aver that
tho agreement declared that IL work
was not commenced boforc August l.
lsG7-extendsd to lS6S-and the sum