The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-06-24
SUIT FOR MILLIONS
AN ENoLIsH MINE OWNER THE
DEFENDANT
Defendant +. g. Seymour Is at Present
avery Wealthy Resident of
Los Angeles

Suits in which millions OF dollars are at
stake are not of frequent occurrence in
the courts of Los Angeles county. and it
was therefore not unnatural that the one
fled yesterday should have been the cause
of considerable comment. The case Is tho
ono In which Arthur c. Raas sues F. HI.
Seymour for amounts aggregating some
$4,000, OOU. amounts alleged by the plaintiff
to be his share of the proceeds from the
conduct and sale of mines in Sonora,
Mexico.
Four causes Of action are alleged by the
plaintiff, the first of which is that in 1880
he owned, In common with the defendant
and number of others whose names to him
are unknown, a mining property in the re-
public Of Mexico known as the Grand Cen
trail niue of Sonora. In the year before
named the complainant states, F. G. Sey-
mour was placed in charge of the mine as
manager and general representative of the
company in which the plaintiff held and
owned q one-twelfth interest. Raas COM
plains that while occupying this position
Seymour shipped several hundred thou
sand dollars worth of ore without making
q return to the other members of the COM
pany or paying them their portion of the
proceeds. In consideration of these facts.
the court Is asked to grant plaintiff judg-
ment Of $50, S33
As second cause for action, it is charged
that Superintendent SeyA our, after repre-
senting to the plaintiff that the mine was
running behind and not near paying the
expenses of operation. opened negotiations
with syndicate of English capitalists. and
In 1897 sold the mine to this syndicate for
50, 600. 900. Plaintiff asks judgment for his
share of the proceeds of this sale. or $3.50,
900. Another allegation in this cause of act
Ion is that Seymour afterwards represented
that sale had been made. but turned over
only $1,000 to Raas as his share of the pro-
Deeds. Seymour is said to hold the securi-
ties OF the English syndicate as part of
the proceeds of the sale as 1t was made
and the court is asked to require him to
turn over such of these securities as will
equal his portion of the proceeds.
The third cause of action is based on
the claim that as superintendent of the
Grand Central mine Seymour was required
to devote his entire time to the interests of
the company, and that instead of so doing
he purposely and with fraudulent intention
allowed certain extensive claim rights of the
company to expire and thereafter relocated
only a portion of the original property. He
Is then said to have used money obtained
from the sale of ore taken from the COM
pany's mine to purchase for himself the
claims he had allowed to become void as
property Of the company, and is alleged to
have sold these to an English syndicate
for $17.000,00O, concealing the entire trans
action from the company by whom he was
employed and which was supposed to have
his entire time devoted to the furtherance
Of its interests. Judgment is asked for the
one-twelfth interest in the proceeds of this
sale. about 81, 100000
For fourth cause Of action, plaintiff
contends that the group of mines thus lost
to the company and afterward bought ard
sold by the defendant are now worth $780,
100000, and asks that the value of his share
be computed on the basis of their present
value, thus emitting him to $4,000 ,666, in
stead of 81, 500, 900.
Judgment is also asked for in considera-
ton of loan of $94S1 60 made to the COM
pany by the plaintiff in 1894 The entire
amount prayed for. with interest and all,
will be considerably in excess of 81 900, 0Oo
The complaint which was originally filed
IN the superior court of San Francisco
county In May, was transferred to Los An
geles county on motion of the defendant,
F. G. Seymour, who is resident of this
city. His attorneys, Graves, O'Melveny a.
Shankland, have entered a demurrer to
each cause of action alleged in the petition,
Claiming, among other things, that the
facts stated are not sufficient; that there
are no co-owners named that the Mexican
laws relative to mine ownership are not set
forth, and that it is not stated by whom
the defendant was placed at the mines as
superintendent of the company.
Mr.. Seymour's attorneys contend that
there is absolutely nothing in the case.