The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-07-11
THE EMMA MINING COMPANY.


7
on June 90. before Mr.. Justice Denman and
special jury. the case Of the Emmr Silver
Mining, Company against Lewis Son was
The action is brought to recover damages
hgans the defendants. who are metal brokers
in LIVERPOOL, for conspiring, with Trpnor W.
Park in ISL. TO induce the plaintiff company
10 come into existence and purchase the famous
Emma Mine. in, Utah. ut u price far above its
refund n sum Of about 5000. which repres Mt
ed the value, with interest realized upon $50
shares in the company. and which II WINS alleged
the defendants had recciyed as promoters OF
the company. Tn" defendants denied the con-
spirncy. and denied that they had had any con-
ne'fion with the sale OF tho nine to the plaintiffs.
and alleged that they had received the $50
shares from Park 10 compensate them for the
loss Of commission on sales Of the ore from the
mine which would De occasioned TO the defend
ants by the change OF ownership in the mine.
and which would otherwise have made the de-
PENDANTS host le to tho acquisition OF the minc
by the plaintiffs
The Attorney: General. Mr.. Gorst q. G.. Mr..
c. Bowen. and Mr. ". u. Foulkes We're for tho
plaintills Sir Henry james. q. G.. Mr.. Her
schell e. c.. and Mr.. II. HEM Collins for the
defendants.
At the sitting Of the court his Lordship COM
menced his summing up. After characterizing
the case Ms one OF extreme importance. he told
the Jury that they must not finch from giving
the verdict they thought right and must be no
rcspecters ot persons. At the same time. a YER
dict seriously affecting the .pecuniary position
and commercial and moral character Of indi-
viduals was not 10 be- given without cogent evil
dencc. New questions Of commercial princ pie
cases such ~ this one. II would. therefore. he
necessary tn exhaust all the questions of fact in
this cnse. The Jury We're not 10 allow Themselves
to be prcJudced hy the mention OF enterprises
80 unfortunate ~ To stink in the nostrls II the
public, nor should inere notoricty MS 10 names
affect them. The plaintiffs here had to make out
n strongly affirmative. cuSp A mere AGREEMENT
Tor the purpose OF furthcring private interest
WIS not necessarily a conspiracy. Here. how
ever. the defendants were charged with con-
spring by fraudulent statements or suppress
sion 70 get benefit to themselves at the expense
For the plaintiffs to succeed 1t would be neces-
sary FOR the Jury to find that fraud had been
committed, that II had been committed by the
detendants. aud that by such fraud the plain
tfs had been injured. An alternative way OF
stating the plaintiffs case was to say that the
defendants were promoters Of the com many and
rs such liable to refund their ill-gottcn gains
TINS also involved a charge Of N iseonduct
which would require full proof. II had been
shown that the defendants haa been making u
legitimate cutninss ion on the sales Of ore. and
were thus Interested IN the further development
ana working ol the mines. The letters showed
that they had IN 1871 begun 10 think Of differ
ent way Of making profits. II should hc re-
mem hrred however. that the alleged frauds Hp-
pheI 10 property ol an undoubtedly spe ulatiNc
KIND. winch. as WAS notorious. often led to great
ventures great fortunes. und grcat disasters.
aud did disagree. The jury were not To- be
afraid OF iOrmiu. thu strong Affirmative ludg-
m.ni that would 10, nee ssary If fraud were IS
something dishonest.
The real question in the case was upon tho
ants had had an ample opportunity %: explain
lnE IN cruss-rNun nation. IL was conceivable
tnut there was certain degree II mercantile
sharpness VII !ch might be- dis 'losed in COR
r"spoudenc" between partners and especially
between father and son. AMI which. in the opin-
lon OF % Jury. mieht tall tar short Of fraud. In
his opinion. the real question raised on the lrt-
t'rs Was-ttid their whole effect produce IN the
minds of the Jury the con fusion that both de-
f'niants substantially knew before doing their
subsequent acs that this mine was mere d.
po,t nht Would soon he worked out. and was
o'uy " rth Aluou Or WAS their conclusion
that the defendants might have res lived -prru-
lutiN"ly, nut honestly. That they would yet the
cpncsn NJ and s"t n rommiss On on tho rro-
crrls t'lal msht . I great value; HIS Lord
shin then won't carefully through the cor
respond nee that had been put in evidence.
commenting upon th" various passages that
have already appeared in our report
On the question of promotcrshp the learned
Judge said he did not attempt 70 lay down amy
rule. but assumed il To- be Il question OF fact on
which there was enough evidence for II Ia he
left to the Jury 1t might be that the defendants
not have come into existence without the inter-
venton ~ som" great ilnancier. His Lordshp
Blake. and remarked that. whatever might
have been Silliman's character. Blakr's first re-
port was II anything. the more favorable Of tho
two, and had undoubtedly done the most toward
selling the mine. His Lordship also read Prof.
BAKE $ second and less favorable letter.
His Lordship finally left to the Jury the follow
ing questions: /. Did the defendants dishon-
estly conspire together with Park and others ~
assist and enable him and them TO sell the mine
] =.
Was the plaintiff company thereby induced To
enter into contract for the purchase OF the
mlnef 8. Did the defendants. in pursuance Of
such conspiracy. state any facts false to their
knowledge with the intention of inducing the
plalntfls 10 purchase the mine nj n price greatly
IN excess OF its real value 1. Did they, with
such intention. irnuduently suppress any facts
material to be- Known 5. Did they, in fact
| suppress any facts material to be- known g.
| Were the defendants promoters His Lord
! snip also laid before the jury the statements Of
! claim and defence, with view OF their adopting
either the plaintiffs or the defendants account
| OF the transaction ms 10 the $50 shares. The
| lury were also asked 10 say whether they in
tended 10 find for the plaintiffs or Defendants
After an absence OF an hour and a quarter the
| Jury returned. and. in answer 10 his Lordship
| stated that. rs To the first live questions they
| were unable to agree. They found that the de-
| PENDANTS We're promoters. Assuming them 10
| ho promoters. they ASSESSED the damages ut the
amount that tho defendants had received.
inc AUorney-Gcneral said that that amount
| ed, with dividends and interest. to GS.luS.
The Jury further said that they were unable
| 10 agree whether they intended to find for the
| plaintiffs or defendants. They were also unable
10 agree rs 10 which OF the stories set out in the
! pleadlngs they considered TO be proved
short discussion followed as 10 what was
! the most convenient course to be adopted upOn
these findings, and finally II was agreed that his
Lordship should adjourn the ease for further
consideration upon the points of law raised, and
give judgment after these had been argued.