Arizona republican., 1906-03-14

| leges:
 That on January s, 1904, Beemer and the defendant corporation entered in- to an agreement with him whereby Pease sold to Beemer all his interest in the capital stock of the AInalgamat- ed for $2,500,O00, MT. Beemer paying S25,000 down and the balance to be paid from the earnings of the mill at the rate of ten per cent of the gross mill returns, from. the time of the com meneement of its operation until the indebtedness was discharged. That MT. Beemer agreed to push the construc- tion of the mill with all possible speed and that it should have a capacity of not less than 500 tons per day within one year of the signing of the con- tract.
 Pease further alleges that the com pany acknowledges receiving eight mining claims from Beemer which he sold to the company for two and a half million dollars and that the company agreed to guarantee to Pease the bal ance of the two and a half millions due him from Beemer, from the ores as they were worked, the payments to be made on the first day of January, April, July and October of each year until the debt was paid. He alleges that Beemer and the company both agreed to conduct operations actively and that the former would do all the necessary assessment work on the property and patent it and to conduct affairs so the property would be work ed continuously.
 Also. that in case the company sold its property in Quartzsice, or more than half of it, Or Beeraer disposed of a controlling interest in it, then Reemer was to pay Pease the balance due.
 Pease further alleges that on Jan. 19. 1905. the contract made on Jan. s, 1904 was modified to give Beemer to July 1905. instead of January. 1905, to begin active operations and that in case water was not developed by drill ing, Pease was to turn over his mill site on the Colorado and Beemer was to construct a pipe line and pump wa ter to the property. Pease says there was paid to him S5O,OOO and no more on the sale and there is now due him $45O,O
 Further that Beemer in violation Of the contract of Jan. 3. 1904. and amended contract of January 1905, has failed to comply with either agreement and has not erected the mill on time nor on July 8, 1905. had he erected 6 sixty stamp mill as he agreed in the second contract, nor has he now any mill on the property and that he has wholly failed to develop an adequate milling supply of water and has failed to pay any sum save the S50,000. Further that the company has failed to reduce ore and failed to pay Pease any money. and has failed to keep its contract.
 Further that Beemer and the com do any work under the contracts but company served notice on Pease that | they repudiated the contracts. Pease also alleges that he has done all his part under the contracts.
 He further states that on March 9, 1905, he assigned all interest | in the contract of Jan 8, 1905. to the American Invest ment and Mining company and on March l. 1906, the said com pany reassigned the said inter est to Pease who now has it. He all leges that neither Beemer nor the Amalgamated has paid any money to the American Investment & Mining company, and that by these failures he has been damaged in the sum of $2,- 450,00O for which sum he prays for | judgment against Beemer and the lAmalgamated Gold Mines company.
 The attorneys for MT. Pease are Street & Alexander. A. c. Baker, and lChristy & Lewis. MT. Beemer is rep
 resented by E. $. Clark and Robert E.
 Morrison of Prescott.