Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-07-07
ALBION vs.. RICHMOND.
Another Day Spent fn the ProIim-
mary Struggle.

mary Struggle.
The great Albion Richmond case is pro-
crossing very slowly. The second day Of
the trial was consumed in arguing pre-
cisely the same point that was considered
on the first day. The SENTINEL had been
led to believe that the question re-
garding Intervention had been finally dis
posed Of and settled by the order OF the
Court spread upon the minutes at the con-
clusion Of Tuesdays argument. At that
time Judge Rives held that the Albion
would be allowed to intervene il it could
show that it was unable to obtain the per-
mission Of the original plaintiffs-Rose ct
als.-to be substituted. The showing was
made by an amendment to the petition in
Intervention, verified by President Robin
son under oath. On the assembling Of the
Court yesterday morning, counsel for the
Richmond Company demurred to this pro-
ceeding, and then followed substantially
the same arguments and recital Of author
tiles as pr. onted on the preceding day,
only more so.
This has been a seriously controverted
point. In fact, the very existence Of the
Albion, so far as this Court is concerned,
hung in the balance, for the following
very forcible reason: The Albion main
tains that the Richmond Company holds
the st. George patent in trust. As against
q trust the statute of limitation expires in
four years; that is to say, that if the Rich
mond had remained in the quiet
and uncontroverted possession OF the
st. George patent for four years,
the patent would become unassailable.
The statute OF limitation ran, we believe,
to May s Of this year. On April %, 1881,
the Albion filed its petition in interven-
ton, asking to take the place Of Rose ct al.
as plaintiffs in the action. Counsel for
the Richmond have urged for two days
that the Albion should nave moved to be
substituted instead Of trying to come in as
an intervenor. Hence, the dates became
the important features of the controverted
point. though these did not show on the
surface until Counselor Baker took the
floor and explained the real milk in the
cocoanut. II the Richmond could sue
coed in overthrowing the petition in in
PREVENTION and thus compel the Albion to
move, as OF this date, to be substituted
then the statute Of Limitation would come
TO the front as a valid defense and the
Albion would virtually be thrown out Of
Court, or at least would have o very in
tricate point to overcome, since ii would
appear in the case by the record for the
first time after the expiration OF the four
years limitation. Hence it was that this
question was SO holly contested.
In yesterdays controversy Mr.. Wren
occupied the attention of the
Court in the forenoon for the Richmond,
and Mr.. Stewart spoke a greater part Of
the afternoon for the Albion, yielding a few
minutes at the close to Mr.. Baker. Coun-
sci for the Albion asserted that they did
not care whether they were substituted for
Rose ct al. or came in as an intervenor, so
long as the question of time was saved.
They carried this point, and may therefore
be considered as having won the only ma
terial thing they commended for. Judge
Rives finally held that under the statute
the Albion should have asked for substitu-
ton and not intervention, and that he
would order substitution as of date April
20, 1881, that being the date of the filing
OF the petition in Intervention. Follow
ing is Judge Rives' order, as copied from
the minutes of the Court:
T.. II. Rose OF al. vs.. Richmond Mining
Company, No. 102.
The hearing of this cause being re-
sumed, both parties appearing, defendant
renews its motion to strike out Albion
Con. Mining Company's amended petition
Of Intervention upon the ground stated in
notice Of motion. Motion granted, with
leave to counsel for the Albion Con. Min
ing Company to move to be substituted
for e. H. Rose ct al. upon the showing
made by the petition Of Intervention. Mo-
ton to be substituted was then made and
granted, with the additional order that the
substitution shall be considered as made
nunc pro u of April %, 1881, the date
Of filing Of the petition of intervention.
Ordered that Court adjourn until to-
morrow, Thursday, July 7, A. D. 1881, at
10 o'clock A. NJ.