The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-09-23
ANACONDA'S MILLIONAIRE.
He Gets a Severe Shaking UP
in a Runaway.

| lie UeLS u DtV6It DldklHS UP
in a Runaway.
us SUIT
Brought Against Him and His Part
ner--They are Accused of
Land Frauds.
Under late Of Sacramento, California,
| September 18th, the San Francisco Chron-
| icle has the following special OF local inter
est, Mr.. Haggin being the owner OF the
Anaconda mine: u. B. Haggin was driving
on the Norris grant last evening wnen his
team tool fright and ran away. Haggin
was thrown out, one OF his shoulder-caps
broken, and he was severely bruised about
the head and body"
In the local column OF the same issue
is an interesting account of a suit against
Mr.. Haggin in connection with the SAM
i grant. upon which he was hurt. The
Chronicle says:
That familiar combination OF names,
Haggin & Tevis. is now attracting public
attention because OF a heavy suit brought
by Samuel Norris for possession of the valu-
| able property known as the Rancho del
Paso, consisting of about 45, 900 acres on
the right bank OF the American river in
Sacramento county. Norris began this
action against J.B. Haggin and Lloyd Tevis
on August 21st, in the Superior Court OF
was transferred to the United States Circuit
| Court in this city. Proceedings in the case
| came to a head last Monday, when J. B.
Haggin called the attention of the Sacra-
mento Supervisors to the fact that the
franchise for the American river toll bridge
will expire on May !, 1886, and offered to
sell the structure. Norris attorneys then
put forward his claim to the bridge, which
is part OF the property in dispute. Besides
it and the rancho, two lots in Sacramento
are included in the SUIT. The value OF the
property over twenty years ago, when Hag-
| gin & Tevis obtained the title to it, which
is at present contested, was as follows
| Rancho del Paso, 81, 1850, 900; lot 6, S75,-
900; lot S, $4,000; toll bridge, $780, 900:
making altogether $1,535, 600. It's worth
has been largely increased since then.
MENTAL INCOMPETENCE.
The complaint states that the defendants
were Norris trusted agents from 1S55 to
1868, and that he acted entirely on their
| advice. On March 4, 1859, he received
| severe injuries on the head which SO de-
! ranged his nervous system that for ten
| years he was unable to attend to his bust
ness and trusted it to Haggin and Tevis.
| On April 20, 1850, Norris executed a note
for $4,000 to Lloyd Tevis, payable on
| demand, without grace, and bearing com
pound interest at the rate OF 9 per cent.
per month. This note was secured by q
| mortgage on the whole OF Norris real es-
+ tate. Norris claims at the date mentioned
he was mentally incompetent, n that he
was wholly unacquainted with with the con-
,l,ts OF the noGe or mortgage until August
%, 1885. The defendants, prior to the
making OF the note, had not loaned him
any money or paid out any OF his account
Their compensation for service could not
reasonably exceed $4,000. The contents
OF the two instruments were neither read
nor explained to him before signed.
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE CHARGED.
For more thar a year after the injuries
| spoken of were inflicted, he believed he
would die from the effects produced. There
fore, in 1859, after recovering conscious
ness, he made a will bequeathing all he had
| to Haggin & Tevis, believing them to be
: his best friends.
On January -, 1860, Tevis began pro-
ceedings in the Sacramento District Court
to forclose the mortgage. This was done
on April IA, 1852, when judgment was
rendered in Tevis' favor for $121, 1928 63
on the note, and on May 9, 1862, Tevis
bought the whole of the property for $751;
600, which was not paid, but a credit to
that extent was made in the judgment.
Norris employed no attorney and made no
defense, as he did not understand the
nature of the proceedings, and did not sus-
pect that Tevis had taken any action look
ing towards his acquisition OF the land.
Norris claims that from 1859 to 1862 the
defendants collected enough money in rents
and tolls, and in other payments of various
kinds to counterbalance all expenses in
Cured by them, pay the interest on the
1854, 900 note and have $4,000 over. Dur
ing the tendency of the foreclosure suit he
signed stipulations, an answer and re-
lease OF errors in the case, but did so he
AYERS, because they were presented to him
by the defendants, and he was ignorant OF
the true nature of their contents. He
signed these Ills he did everything else
which the defendants presented to him,
having the Utmost faith in them.
CONSPIRACY ALLEGED.
Norris alleges that Haggin & Tevis, for
getting their obligations to him as conf
Dental advisers and agents conspired with
others to throw a cloud on the title OF the
property, so that none other than they
would purchase it at the foreclosure sale.
They had James Ross bring suit against
Norris, and he obtained judgment for
50, O63 IL. This was on a note dated De-
ce,nber 81, 1859, purporting to have been
drawn by Norris in favor OF A. McDuif, and
payable July /, 1860. Norris declares that
he never made the note, and that instead
OF his owing McDuff anything then, Nc
Duff was largely indebted to MIN. The
property had previously been sold ION o.
tober /, 1860 by the. sheriff to A. X.
Grimm, to satisfy Judgment OF $4,000 SO,
procured it is asserted, with the defendants
co%nnivance. Ross redeemed it from this
sale, and on April 2, 1861, received a
sheriff g deed for the land. He afterwards,
on March 10, 1862, without consideration,
and pursuant to the wishes and directions
of defendants, conveyed it to F. T. May
nard, who, on May3O, 1863, transferred it
for no consideration to Tevis for the use
OF himself and Haggin. During 1859, 1860
and 1861, when the Grimm and Ross
suits were going on, all papers served on
Norris were sent to Haggin & Tevis, as
his attorneys, for whatever action they
deemed necessary. He believes the defend
ants involved their acts in this matter in
such intricacies as would hinder him from
discovering their purposes ofspoliation and
enable them to maintain friendly relations
with him, so as to secure his entire estate
beyond recovery. On March 3, 1862. judg-
ment was rendered by defaultin Ross
by the Sacramento District Court for Dos
session OF the rancho and bridge. Norris
declares that he did not kno or compre-
bend what thisa action was about, and the
defendants allowed him to remain in that
ignorant state. On May 8, 1862, the de-
PENDANTS took possession OF the bridge. and
on .June 12. 1865 took DOsSeSSiOn OF the
rancho, and have since. been receiving the
tolls and rents. Soon after, by a transfer
of the Norris bridge and franchise, Haggin
& Tevis became owners OF a half-interest
in Lisle's bridge across the American river,
and have since, according to the complaint,
received annually in tolls $4,000.
A DEED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.
Norris also charges that Haggin & Teyis
received $4,000 as his agents for his claim
to some property in Texas. and have never
accounted for it. They soIdt the two Sacra-
mento lots mentioned in 1868 to innocent
purchs sers for $4,000 and appropriated
the money. On June 90, 1868, Norris