The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-05-22
in JUDICIAL CIRCLES.
The Brown-Crescent Fight
Before Judge Zane.
ANOTHER DIVORCE GRANTED.
The Complaint of the Citizens In
the Southeastern Portion
of Ihe City.

The legal battle in the Third District
Court-the case of Arthur Brown ct al.
VS.. the Crescent Mining Company-is
still "oH," and is being waged with IN
abated fury; Brown, Sutherland and
Critchlow representing the plain
tiffs, while Baskln and Sprague
are looking after the interests
of the defendant company. The PLAIN
tiffs in their complaint, allege that they
are the owners, seized in fee and en-
titled to the possession of a certain
patented mining claim, known as the
Plutus, lot No. PCT. in Uintah Mining
District, Summit County; that on or
about the 1st day of October, 1885, the
Crescent Company entered upon said
premises, ousted plaintiff therefrom,
and is now, aDd has been since that
time in possession and enjoyment of
said mining claim; that there are now
situated upon the said mining claim two
tramways and two large orehouses, in
which latter there is large amount of
ore which had been deposited there
by the defendant; that plaintiff
bad forbidden the defendant the use of
the said premises, whatsoever. and did
forbid defendant from using and de-
posting ore or anything else on the
said premises on or about the 18th day
of October, 1886. but Notwithstanding
this, descendant has continued to de-
posIt ore upon the said premises, and
plaintiff claims that thereby the ore be
came the property of said plaintiff;
plaintiff further alleges that the defend
ant is removing ore from time to time
and marketing the same to suit its
convenience; that the rental value of
the premises named is $1,000 per year.
Plaintiff, therefore, asks that he re-
cover possession of said premises;
that he recover damages for the
detention of the premises at the rate of
81 900 a year from the time of entry
aforesaid until the judgment in the
case; that in the meantime the defend
ant be restrained from removing any
ore, both permanently and pending
this litigation.
THE CRESCENT ANSWER.
The defendant denies that plaintiff
ever has been entitled to the possession
of those parts of the Plutus which have
been in the use of the defendant; and
denies generally all the ale =atlons of
the other side. Further answering, it
says that since the 9th day of
1882. a corporation en-
gsged in mining for silver, lead
and other valuable metals In
the Territory; that it owns mining
claims of great value situated on steep
declivity of a mountain Immediately
above and adjoining the Plutus mining
claim; that il has constructed steam
tramway and an automatic tram
way by which the Crescent ores
are hauled from the mine; that these
were constructed at a great expense,
and run over the ground in dispute by
and with the consent of the defendant,
because that was the only feasible way
ia which the mine could be reached,
etc.
The case will probably occupy a
couple more days.
OTHER BUSINESS,
Kelsey VS.. Kimball ct al; judgment
for plaintiff by default.
Emma Jorgensen VS.. Ole Jorgensen;
in divorce; divorce granted by default.
Edward Stevenson ct al. vs.. Sarah H.
TAYLOR ct al; upon petition, Sarah A.
Taylor appointed guardian ad Item for
infant defendants, Harriet Taylor, Ag-
mes Taylor, Sarah Taylor and John
Taylor.
Geo. A. Rice ct al. VS.. Sarah g. Bow
en- ct al. upon petition, E. I. Sprague
a cpointed guardian ad Item, for minor
defendant George l., Bowen.