The San Francisco call., 1895-10-10
A BIG MINING BOND SUIT.
Judge Prewett of Placer County
Holds Court in Local
Law Office.
CHEROKEE GRAVEL CONTEST
The Bank of Callfornia's Technical
Fight in Case involving
S25o,OOO.

The famous mining suit for possession
| of the well-known Cherokee gravel mine of
Butte County between the Bank of Cali
fornia and n. D. Rideout on one hand and
| the bondholders of the property on the
| other has again been started on the way
| toward the Supreme Court Yesterday
before Superior Judge Prewett OF Placer
| County, sitting in San Francisco, the
attorneys in the case lined up for weeks
argument upon single technical point,
which point has already been passed upon
by the Judge. The hearing was held in
Allen & Herrin's law Office, and although
really Butte County case it takes place in
| this City for the acco Inmodation of the
attorneys.
The prominence of the parties interested,
the value and fame of the property in
volved and the length and technical
nature of the legal proceedings combine to
| make the case OF unusual interest to min
ing men. For seven long years the bond
holders have been vainly seeking to fore
close their lien on the mine. but their
action has so far been successfully opposed
by the bank and n. D. Rideout, the two
unsecured creditors. The suit is being
carried on upon purely technical grounds;
the points presented are fne and intricate
and are of such 8 nature that have never
before been brought before court for
adjudication.
The Cherokee mine is situated twelve
miles north OF Oroville and is one of the
largest and richest hydraulic mines in the
State. Over fifteen millions in gold has
been taken out of it, and those familiar
with the mine assert that that sum is but
a fraction of the total wealth lying in the
leads. 1t is the only hydraulic mine in
the State that has never had trouble with
its debris, it owning thousands of acres of
tule land, whereon its sllckens was depos-
tied. Since the commencement of the
4 suit in 1883 the works have been practi-
cally closed down pending the result OF
the litigation.
The title of the suit is William Alvord
= ct al. vs. the Spring Valley Gold Company
the plaintiff, Alvord, being the trustee OF
! the bondholders. The Bank Of California
J and n. D. Rideout appear as intervenors,
: the mining company itself making no con.
= test against tn. bonds.
:, The principal holders of the bonds are
Louis Glass of San Francisco, David Gage
of Oakland, Charles N. Fry, W. L. Jen
I I kins and Charles NJ. Post, of New York
: with few minor holders.
The case has already been partially de-
cided by the Supreme Court, and in thai
q decision the bonds were held to be valid
: Only a part of the technicalities were
: brought before the court on that occasion
l however. This time the attorneys nope tC
get the balance OF them up for hearing.
- In the former suit only the validity O.
the bonds was decided by the Supreme
Court. Superior Judge Prewett, before
whom the case was tried, held that the
bonds were not barred by the two years
statute of limitations, but that they were
not legally authorized by the stockholders
and were, therefore, invalid. The bond
holders appealed to the Supreme Court
with the result that Judge Prewett's de
cision was reversed. Owing to legal for
mality the bondsmen could not bring tn,
question of the statute of limitations be
fore the higher court, and, as the bank
ing argued again before Judge Prewett
The Judge has already held that the two
years statute does not apply, and his de
cision is known. but 1t is the only way tha
the matter can be brought before the Su
preme Court.
The argument made by the attorneys il
favor OF having the bonds declared to b.
outlawed are of an unusually technica
nature. and have never been brought be
fore court for decision. The question
hinges on the execution and delivery O
the bonds-whether 1t occurred in Ney
York or California. The mortgage wa
signed and acknowledged by one of tn,
trustees in New York, and by him for
warded to California, where it was ais
signed and acknowledged by the other two
The bonds were countsrsigned by MI
Laidlaw in New York and in San Francisc
by Messrs. Alvord and Low.
The banks claim that the bonds an
mortgage were delivered in the State O
New York, and therefore that the tw
years statue of limitations applies. Will
the bondsmen insist that the delivery wa
s. in California and brings the case within
l. the four years statute, in which event tn
1t plea of limitations on the part of the bank
e would be defeated. On this point the at
e torneys will argue for week to come,
e The attorneys in the case are: For til
IS 6ondholders, T. 2. Brakeman; Bank g
s California. G. W. Cross and J. NJ. Allen
C Rideout, T. G. Lusk of Chico.
n
II /