The morning call., 1893-08-22
WITH FIREARMS.
Guns Play a Part in a
Mining Case.
Lawyer Miner Hints to the Court
Pretty Strongly That They
Might Be Used.

Attorney Richard S. Miner is an aggres-
sive advocate. He was contending in
favor of his client. the Little Emily Mining
and Milling Company of Chicago, yester-
day before Judge McKenna, during the
fOrenoO on session of the United States Cir
cult Court, against proposition of Attor-
ney Patrick Reddy, who had appeared for
the defendants. William Couch. r. T..
Harrell, John Shirley, John King. John
Livingstone and John McFatridgp. The
proposition was that the mining property
in the Blind Springs mining district.
Mono County. this State. which is in dis
pute between the litigants, be subject to a
survey according 10 previous stipulation
between the parties.
1t was not just exactly the place TO re-
late all the details of the invasion made by
the defendants, as alleged, upon the plain
tiff's premises, nor 20 tell hnw. wnen the
plaintiff attempted 10 remove certain OBJ
structions placed in the tunnels by de-
PENDANTS and had poked a small hole
through, that one of defendants hireings
had shot toward the hole with a loaded
gun, the bullet grazing the cheek and hand
of Brlligerent HOtchkiss. Nor yet was il
Altogether relevant to state the ciTcum-
stances of United States Marshal Longs
visit there last winter to serve papers. and
of that officials deputiZng man named
Webster. upon whom one of the defend
ants, Mr.. Harrell. pulled a gun, but Mr..
Miner managed to get all these things be-
fore the court.
He also gave short history of the dan
gers in the way of dynamite and other eX.
posives that beset the path of the rightfGl
owners when they engaged in subterranean
explorations, and. holding up diagram of
the mines made hy Civil and Mining En-
giueer J.. +. j. Wrinkle for the defend
ants, he gave the court offhandedly to
understand that the plaintiff did not Oh
ject anyhow TO a survey being made--in
fact, one had already been made, as the
map thus spread before his HOlor'S eyes
should attest.
The argument of the lawyer did not
Work the way he supposed ii would. He
had not failed to hint very strongly that
the company he represented would prob
ably have some men in the mines with fire.
arms, and that they might use the same
uDOn any and all tress passers In self-Dro-
lection. and when Mr.. Miner did that
there was something grim about him. The
court did not pay particular attention TO
this covert threat, however, but took the
attorney at his word about not objecting
10 survey being made, and ordered, ac-
cordingly, that defendants have perfect
liberty to go uDOn the premises and make
full and complete survey.
In this controversy the plaintiffs claim
that for five years nD' to last February
they were in possession of the Laura lode,
which had been located by Henry Fitz-
hugh, G. &. Judd, John Hubbard, NJ.
Medley, Dan Cathy and c. F. B. Esmond
IN April, 1865. and the Eureka lode,
located in June of that year by J. W.
Fitzhugh, W. T. Redd. j. w. Scale, James
Cheatham and Sol Carter. both claims
being in Blind Springs Hill and contigu-
Gus one to the other. forming a valuable
mining property 34G0 feet long by 100 feet
VIDE, known as the Little Emily mine
Last February, they say, the defendants
entered into possession clandestne of
certain of the plaintiffs prnperty aud took
out silver aud gold ore to the value of
$4,000. The suit was brought in equity to
nave defendants removed.
In me argument yesterday Mr.. Miner
SAID the defendants had endeavored to
conceal over a score of sacks of ore
The defendants have set up a title To the
Modoc mine. located by Thomas A lbrieht
In January. 1875. According 10 Mir.
Wrlnk kle's map the Laura tunnel strikes
DRIFT OF the Modoc mine. 1t is this drift of
ore which is in dispute. In Mr.. Wrinkle's
athGavlt he gives IL as his opinion that the
vein exposed in the Modoc location is a
separate and distinct one from that OF the
Eureka and Laura mining claims.