Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-10-27
EUREKA CON. VS.. RICHMOND.
what an English Correspondents
Has to Say about h Suit for
Damage.

Damage.
We find In the London Mininy Journal
Of recent date q communication from a
shareholder in the Richmond Company,
treating of the suit for damage instituted
by the Eureka Consolidated to recover the
value Of the ore extracted from the Potts
Chamber. The article, though evidently
written to bear the Richmond stock in the
London market, contains some points Of
interest at this end Of the line. 1t is as
follows:
While the Washington decision on the
Potts Chamber suit cannot be expected
for another year at the earliest, 1t Is un-
derstood that the Eureka snit for damages
arising from the same cause must come on
very soon in the District Courts; and /
think it il unfortunate that more informa-
ton should not have been given by the
Directors of the progress Of the latter suit.
The judgment Of the Circuit Court OF the
United States having been unanimously in
favor Of the Eureka, this suit was COM
menced by them for the amount OF dam
ages, estimated by the plaintiffs at
50, 500, 900,
The principal item being for So, 200 tons Of
ore, worth $40 per ton, extracted from
Eureka ground. The great difference be-
tween the two estimates Of quantity will
probably be settled somewhere between
the two figures, upon the evidence usual in
such cases; but the equally important point
Of how the ore wifi be valued is not so
certain. As to the ore being of no value,
the plea need not be regarded. 1t was
taken from
THE CELEBRATED 'PoTrs' CHAMBER"
| The evidence of whose richness can be cas-
lily proved from the mouth Of the company
itself; but, whether the value will be taken
of the ore in sta or on the dump, and
whether damages will be limited to the ac-
tual value Of the ore seems TO be open to
question. On this point | have obtained
the legal opinion Of one OF the leading
American bsrristers, whose services have
been retained in many important Nevada
mining suits, but who is on neither side on
this question, and though it does not
| throw much light on the subject, except to
| show its perplexities, yet it gives one as
positive All opinion as could probably be
obtained from any
AUTHORITY
OF equal position. He says: There has
been great conflict in the decisions on the
question, and all kinds Of rules as to the
measure of damages decided. Some have
said the value Of the ore in the ground be-
fore extraction;' others value Immediately
after sevcring;' others value after sever
ing, less cost Of bringing TO the dump
others value of ore. less cost Of minine;'
but I have found none where the defend
ant is allowed to show net proceeds after
working. To allow a party 10 prove by his
books that ore was worked at q loss would
| open the door to too many questions as to
whether or not it was properly, or econom-
icaliy, or intelligently worked. In many
decisions the doctrine was laid down that
a distinction should be made whether the
trespass was innocent, or wilful and ma
licious; that in the former case net value
would be the measure; in the latter gross
value, and sometimes double damages for
punishment and to deter others from tres
passes. IN
OTHER CASES
Courts declare that the question as to
whether trespass was innocent or malicious
was immaterial, so that an far as actual
decisions so the thing is awfully muddled,
but / think the more considered, later,
and more reasonable rule is that in the
absence Of express malice the Court Will
instruct the jury to lind what the market
value was originally first announced in
England some considerable time ago, and
was strictly followed in some cases in
ILLINOIS AND OTHER STATES.
But lately in Pennsylvania las to coal),
and in California as to underground gravel
workings the more reasonable rule Of value
on dump, less cost OF extraction, prevails,
and has also been followed lately in Eng
land (where no fraud or malice has been
charged or shown, the theory being as
declared in the late English case that AN
innocent trespasser THAT is. one trcspass-
ing, but in good faith believing it was his
own groundl shall be treated as the pur-
chaser of the ore on the dump, to pay its
market value there. but dedncting proper
allowance for mining and hosting. But
the question may TO some extent be consid-
cred an open one. and a Court could easily
fortify itself with much authority for in
structing a jury that they must find for
the gross value" The subject is so i'm
portant to the immediate interests of the
proprietary, and so little has the matter
been calmly discussed, that the result may
be rather startling in its suddenness and
its effects. So far we have not bern fortu-
nate in our estimate Of the results of our
lawsuits. and it would be well for the sub
ject to be quietly examined from both sides,
even though we may no longer enjoy the
full measure of bliss in which ignorance of
facts and blindness to probabilities might
leave US.