Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1877-02-02
FirSt Days Proceedings.

NJ A&oihSl thV SVhSOtt
dated Mining Company Qimitsd) Of London
England, assumed definite shape yestcrda,
In tho District Court. Some days since q re-
straining order was issued by tho Hon. +. "
Cole, of the Sixth District Court, against tn,
defendants working certain portions Of min
ing ground. tho own crship of which is now il
dispute, and argument upon this order wa
yesterday begun. Tho Eureka Consolidated
Company was represented by II. X. Mitchell
Col. HI. Thornton, Solomon Heydenfeldt and
John CARRIER. the former two being in Court
The Richmond Company was represented by
Hon. Tbos. Wren. Crittenden Thornton. A.
NJ. Hilhouse and Y. J. Lansing, ali Of whom
wore present in court and took part in the
proc edings.
Within the bar wore also seated W. II.
Shaw, Supsrin endsnt OF the Jackson Com
pany: General Dodge and II. Donnelly, Pres
ident and Superintendent OF tho Eureka
Consolidated; Edwin Prebert, Resident Di-
rector Of tho Richmond Company; J. +. Pa
ter, Of the Atlas Company; VIM. Arlington,
Of the XXX Company; Joseph Potts, Foreman
Of the Richmond Company; Major. W W.
Mccoy, Mr.. Ieile, Con. Reilly, j.. j.. Corri-
gan, WIS. keyes, U. 5. Deru'y Surveyor l.
j. Read. and many other mining mon,
the members Of Eureka Bar Association, and
oihcr treatment citizens interested in the
| y
II. X. Mitchell opened the argument by q
statement Of the case now pending. saying
that no issue had been made, as defendant
had filed no answer. or that no demurrer
had bsen intorposcd to the bill in equity, and
no ,denials made to ny of plaintiff s aver
ments, and therefore asked for q continuance
| Of the inj JUNCTION.
Co!ono' Thornton followed, making q SINH
lar statement. and was succeeded by Thos.
| Wren for tho defense, who opened his re-
MARKS BY referring to tho complaint intro
duccd as q basis OF action as a most remark.
able document. tho most remarkable ever
found on tho Garth, in the earth. or in the
heavens above the earth." He supposed
that a com plant in cjectment was q worry
sim PIE document, and could be found in any
form hook in the office Of ony lawyer. but
tho gentlemen appearing for the plaintiff had
di,regarded this and adopted a form of their
ment.
Considerable time was consumed in arsu-
mont of various law points. occupying nearly
III. entire morning session q tho court.
Of an application by defendant to have the
injunction dissolved, on tho ground that dur
ing tho pending Of tho hearing to show cause,
plaintiff was causing to bo removed tho ore
in tho ground II dispute. lie mado the state
mont on information, and bad no means Of
verifying it unless by witnesses on tho stand.
lie Afterwards stated that hc had seen tho
ore removed h'msolf. -
II. pohneiiy. naperantenaent OF me Eu,on1
~ .ns,;sel I'M. 80 y.
..In:da .es.'S' u u" "A' SUPPLEMENTARY VI
-nru ' Inv wr.,-D. "a, Lrov ~. r.,
~ III. "rsnT.po you nno" ~ nu-
,Ssn o1nso'as.r" COMPANY nihes' villa 'neir
~ DO
Q-Has defendant /, this action been work.
inv, or is now working in the ground in dis
pute!
h-Notduring tho pcndency OF the restrain
ing order. to my knowiodcs. ,.
Q-Has defendant been working in this
sronnd prior to the ordsr7
Ale s. ,ir; certainly.
Q-Has tho PLAINTIFF?
A-Not 10 ths ground stated in the COM
plant, a. understand IL
Q-W here Is piaintih working
A-sn tho 9TH isvei.
Q-Nea th' hichmond iineT
Q-Doyeu know whore the Potts Chamber
in the Richmond mine Is LOCATOR
A-fe'. sir.
Q-Arc you working near there!
A-nos -,
,Q-Hayo you been working there all tho
tine on that ore body
.A-Weare about w feet from tho fotts
Chan Der. think, on the same lode. -
,Q,lIsys ysu ossn taking ore from th'rs oil
the time?
AYES, sir.
cHosShNNAi'Hp'
Man Of tho mines shown to witness by
.Y,onei anO,hvUn. inS Witness 'H'"eu W u
Q-Has tho plaintiff done any work on that
portion known ms Potts Chamber?
A-No. We could not get there unless 60
ing through the Richmond mine. Witness
| showed on map workings of mine,J
,rn,p,cr
""
We are taking Out, ore about 2oo ieot from
Pets ana think IRON the same
lode.
Mr., wren nero stated no WouIu ike 10 nhu
out what defendant was restrained LOT.
Colonel thornton referred him to tho order
issaed py the Court
me order was ieno " Mr. wren VINO,
After nnishing, said that the Worship o, Tue
ground as tostihed 70 oy superintendent Don,
molly wasa palpaoie vto'ation o. mo Jaw ana
claimed tho junction SHOULD DC diss9ive9
and not have tho bands Of one party tied and
the other allowed to proceed IN destroying
the very substance OF tho earth itsei.:
The question Was iurther argued py re-
spsctivc, counsel. nj the close oil when tne
motion by dsfendants counsel wa not sus'
tained;. which ruling was exceptcI 20.
Another TIT hers TOOK pIaec oetwee1 .ns
attorneys regarding the construction OF W.
statute on in)unction. ntto1neys IoI Pia,ntln
suggested the auvisaoiiity VI havIns c,o.Ss
employed TO JAKE GOWN tne e,luones. uWTt.ne
proposition was NOT sg'ceepie W NJ ".oI
who would provide ms own cierks lot sucn
purpose. ~
Adjourned untii p
~NnnN cNcSynN