The Anaconda standard., 1895-11-22
In FAVOR OF MANTLE
he Will Not Have to Pay Largey and
0wsley $4,000 Each.
THE FINDINGS OF THE JURY
Mr.. Corbett Goes After the Plain
tiffs Testimony Rough Shod
Who Voted for and
Against the Verdict.

-
in a general verdict for the defendant.
Lee Mantle. the Jury finding In his Ia
vor on both the claims Of p. A. Largey
and william Owsley, each of whom
sued for $4,000 as an alleged half In
terest in the $4,000 received by Mr..
Mantle for the Brittania mine. The
special findings of the jury were that
the defendant, Mr.. Mantle, and the in
tervenor, Mr.. Owsley did not enter
into an agreement prior to March 10,
1880, wherein II was agreed by mutual
consent to forfeit the Charter Oak land
claim and that the defendant should
relocate Ii in his own name as the joint
property of himself and Mr.. Owsley,
and the defendant did not relocate the
ground embraced within the Charter
Oak under the name OF the Brittania
after making such agreement; that the
ground embraced within the Charter
Oak Is in part or in whole the same
covered by the Brittania; that the de-
fendant and Owsley did not Jointly de-
velop the Brlttania after its location
by the defendant: that the intervenor,
Owsley. was to have no interest In the
Brittania by any agreement entered
into between Mantle and Owsley on or
prior to March 16, 1850. and the Inter
venor Is entitled TO no share in the
purchase price received by the defend
ant; that the defendant and p. A. Lar
gey had no agreement prior to March
16, 1880, with reference to the mining
ground located by the defendant as
the Brittania, whereby II was agreed
that such mining ground should be To-
Gated by the defendant for their joint
benefit; that Mantle and Largey did
not as owners Jointly develop the Brit
tania after its location by the defend
ant; that the plaintiff, Largey, rs enti-
tied to no part OF the money received
by the defendant from his sale of the
Brittania: that the defendant, Mantle,
when he located the ground did not do
so in pursuance with any agreement
he had with Owsley or Largey or that
they or either of them should have an
interest in the location; that neither
Owsley nor Largey ever paid any part
OF the expenses of locating or repre-
senting the Brittania before the patent
was issued, and that at the time the
mine was sold in 1893 it was the prop
erty of Lee Mantle.
The Jury was out from IL 80 to 1890
O'Clock. and stood to 4, as follows:
In favor OF the verdict-John Boyd,
oseph Archambault, James Kemp, Gus
Jenike, A. Des Jardines. John Ground.
George c. Leford and w. l.. FAINT:
against the verdict-George w. Gregg
Isaac Meagher, John Connell and e. J.
Middleswart.
made the closing argument to the jury
for the defense, during the course of
which he said:
II propose to dissect the testimony of
Owsley and Largey in the case and
show IL the jury owes them anything
II will be a gratuty; that they have
paid no value for 1t; that Largey gave
nothing for II and Owsley gave less
than nothing.
From Mr.. Largey's testimony / take
list of the things he says he gave
Mantle prior to December, 1879. The
first was the Carte Blanche lode claim,
the second was the Pixies Peak, and
the third the Mary Ann. In his state
ment in chief Largey said positively
that at the time mentioned he had de-
clared Mantle in for a half interest in
each one of these claims. On cross-ex-
animation Largey was compelled to
admit, and the court records prove be-
yond Dargey's or any other mans tes-
timony that Largey did not own the
Carte Blanche claim. that IL belonged
to a man named Turner who owed
Largey a debt, and the half interest he
gave Mantle was therefore no more
than a right to pay half in Turner's
debts. The Pixies Peak claim belonged
TO a dead mans estate OF which Largey
was administrator. The Mary Ann was
a portion of another dead mans estate
of which Largey was administrator
The law then. as now, prohibited Lar
gey from dealing in any way for his
own benefit or the benefit of others
with property that belonged to an es-
tate. Therefore, taken at his own
word. when he gave Mantle an interest
In these two claims. he was guilty OF
violation of the law and a crime. SO
II seems that Largey gave. in consider
alton OF Nantes promise. a right to
chances to go to jail. and for this Lar
gey now comes and asks that the jury
present him with a handsome gift OF
200. How much would he have
asked for If he had given Mantle some
thing valuable?
Mr.. Owsley says that as a consider
alton to Mr. Mantle that he should
locate him in the claim; he promised
Mantle that he would abandon the To-
cation which he then held upon the
ground. In the first part of Owsley's
testimony he stated that himself and
others owned the ground together; that
he personally had given some other
men deeds TO shares in the ground dn
consideration that they should repre-
sent u for him. The men had repre-
sented " and had become part owners
with him. He also stated that he be-
heved II TO be law at that time for a
man TO relocate his own claim. IL
appears from Mr.. Owsleys testimony
that In getting Mantle 10 relocate the
claim II was his intention to swlndle
MS own partners out of the interest he
had given them and 10 defraud the
United states government
SO the two stand before the Jury
with their valuable considerations. The
one-Largey acknowledging that he
has defrauded dead mems estates and
wants 10 De rewarded therefor, and the
other swearing that he defrauded his
own partners and committed a crime
against the government and for this
they ask reward OF $4,000 a piece.
'Mr. Largey could betKer have
AFFORDED even IL he had the right
which ne has not-never to have
brought this suit rather than To have
such statements as these from has own
lips go out TO the public. for when the
news OF how he treated dead mems
property goes abroad ia the Community