New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-16
THE EMMA NINE LITIGATION.

THE EMMA MINE LITIGATION.
ANSWERS OF TRENoR W. PARK AND II. II.
BAXTER.
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC DENIALs or FRAUD-HIs-
TORY on THE PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENT sALh
OF THE MINE 70 ENGLISH CAPITALIsrs-THs
ATTACHMENTS on THE Defendants BASED ON
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DECLARED TO BIZ TRUE
IN EVERY PARTICULAR - THE ENGLISH PUR-
CHAsERs ASSERTED TO HAVE INVESTIGATED THE
MINE BEFORE PURCHASING, AND TO HAVE En-
PRESSED THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DE-
MANDED FOR TIE DEFENDANTS
There was published in The TRIBUNE OF Feb.
the complaint of tho Emma Mining Company OF
Utah and England, in which grave charges OF fraud
were made against the defendants in tho suit
brought by the Company. These defendants were
Trenor w. Park, H. ii. Baxter. and Senator stewart
of Nevada who it was alleged, by false representa-
tons induced the English Stockholders, VINO now
own the mine, to buy it at price far IN excess OF S
real value. The Company claims damages TO tho
extent of b, 900 000 and brought suit in tho Su-
| prome Court of this State to enforce tho
claim. Trenor w. Park and II. II. Baxter
have Just served their answers in which they deny
all charges OF fraud claiming that every representa-
tion made by them was true Of their knowledge or
| belief and that the English Company did not enter
into the bargain until they had satisfied themselves
| Of tho truth Of the statements made. iho an
swers practically claim that the English Stockholm
ers went into tho matter with their eyes OPEN no
fraud was practced, and if tho mino was not as pro-
ductiye after tho sale before, it was not the 1aut
of thedefendants. The statements in Parks and BaX
tcrs answers are substantially the same. Iaat OF
| Mir. Park is given in full herewith.
THE ANSWER OF TRENOR W PARK.
Supreme Court, City and County Of New- J0re!
| The Emma Silver Mining Company Gimtcb OF London
against Trenor w. Park aud H. Henry Baxter Implicated
&c-The answer Of Trcuor W. Park. one Of tbs defend
| ants, to the verified complaint OF the plaintiffs
Trenor W. Park one OF the defendants above uained'
by Chittenden G. Hubbard, his attorneys not waving
the objection OF the complaint herein. that said complaint
does not state facts sufficient to constitute cause OF nc
ton but expressly reserving such objection for answer
| 10 tho said complaint, saith:
That he admits the incorporation Of the plaintiffs and
the conveyance about the 18th dag OF February
1871, by James b. Day and Others, to corporation
called the Emma Mining Company Of Utah, OF certain
silver mno and Other property, as set forth In the sad
complaint, ut foliOs to inclusive And this defendant
further answering the said complaint saith thaG his
knowledge Of the Emma Mine commenced In the month
OF March 1871 that about the LIST OF April 1871 this
defendant and the defendant H. Henry Baxter visited
the mne which situated near Salt Lake CITY, III the Ter
| ritOry OF Utah that DllSo anu SIhl
examination of tho same that they were informed by
the then the mine and that the working thereof
commenced about month of July, 1870; that between
that date and 4t day of March, 1871 there mad Dcen
extracted thercrOm 6O25 tons Of silver Ores which hdd
| yielded the net profit OF moro than SoSOOOO
that very nearly whole Of said ores had been sent 10 the
houses of Bath Son OF London AMI Lewis son of Liver
poU and by them sold In Liverpool AMI this defendant
then believed and still believes that such Information
was true that by OF this large product OF ore the
said milne had acquired high reputation, and was De-
loved by all persons acquainted with it 10 be one OF the
most valuable mines OF silver heretofore discovered;
that this defendant and said Baxter were further in
formed By said owners that patent therefor had
| ever issued from tho United states; that the
title of said had been acquired by purchase from
persons claiming to have boan the discoveries VI
the mine, and that there largo nubr OF adverse
claimants thereto, and many suits and actions pending
in which the title said mine involved; that III view
of the situation of the t0 and the knowledge OF said
owners ln relation thereto this defendants and said B2x
declined purchase any terest therein unless the
said owners also retained interest therein until tho
finally settled that tncreupOn, after much ne
collation. this defendant and said Baxter purchased OF
the said nlyided half interest in tho said
mine and property without any covenants of warranty
or title and subject the suits and claims Aforesaid and
paid therefor the OF $4,000 which was fully
dat Of said purchase and tho 2S day Of August ISL
That his defendant then believed that TIE said mine
| u
perfect tito thereto could DO secured; hat sdI imam
NJ Stewart hal interest therein or III che purchase 50
made by this defendant and said Baxter nor was he IN
any wise consulted ia connection herewith; and in fact
las at tine time tIe counsel or an adverse claimant
thereto; and this defendant says npon information and
belief, that the OccsCn aforesaid Was The only one upon
The defendant Baxter ever visited or SAW tle SAID
Emma Mine that among tho actions 80 pending was ono
in OF James h. Lyon, which was brought on iUr
trial IN the month OT July 1871 that this der dnt AMI
said Baxter employed counsel and this dcicndan: wcnt
with sad counsel To Utah. Tor sho purpose Of attending
said trial; that the same was not 1ed, but was, by the
| AGREEMENT of thB pilitS, Ipier6u tO tho late BIN
| jImn L. Curtis OF Boston. to DO decided ~
| cOrdug TO law; that upon this occasion this
defendant again examined said mine; that tho produc
| ton OF ore tnorer0n mad not IN hnywiSe diminished
either IN measure value; and tus defendant then be-
cyod did all other persons thn acquainted there
witn that the same would DC permanent In duratOn and
OF the value or many millions OF dollars That tie
SAID stewart, cOusei for SAID Lyon, applied to this
defendant with proposition To compromise SAID Lyons
suit which proposition this defendant at rsG decl
that tEGrupOn said Stewart proposed ~ ODa O tho con
| dtOns OF said COMPROMISE J1at said Lyon should
Withdraw mis- objections the issue of patent from
the United states, AMI that such patent should bo
| issued To the ownors in possession OF said
nne conveying to them title thereto that Emma
Mining Company OF Now-YOrK and said Stewart finally
agreed unon tho terms of compromise OF said l., on's
claim, substance IOows tnat in consideration OF
tue discharge OF said claim, and te issue VI suc patent
which would settle and confirm the lite OF said own.
mne said would agree that the said
should be sold Tor the best price That couid DO
obtained taerefOr nat out OF the Proceeds u such sao
said should Ust bB paid tho or 81 100000;
and the said Lyon should receive certain percontge of
amy surplus above that sum, when peroenHSe should
nOt, III any event, exceed the sum or SoOU,OOO.
| ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY.
That shortly after said purchase by defendant
said BaNtor. account of tho peculiar unset
tied condition OF tho laws In Utah. IL agreed. be-
tween al tho Ownors of said mine that tho management
of ito financial Affairs should bo transferred City Of
| NewYOrk; and tuat for its more economical manage
men and to keep distinct the several Interests Of the
owners thereof u company should bo organized undor
tho laws of tho State OF NowYofk, and located in New
YORK CITY, take tho title OF said property that the