Tonopah bonanza. [volume] (Butler City [i.e. Butler], Nev.) 1901-1909, 1906-01-06

Judge Breen's decision III the great
neutrality-suspicious. case, was filed
With County Clerk Bevis last Tuesday.
The learned jurist found for the de-
PENDANTS and scored the plaintiffs in no
uncertain terms. In the opinion
handed down, Judge Breen reviews the
mass of testimony in the case and in an
able manner shows conclusively that
the defendants are entitled to judg-
ment.
The opinion in full would occupy nine
columns Of space in the BONANZA, but
the gist of it is as follows:
II is set forth in the material allega-
ions of tire complaint, that on or
about the Goth Of August, 1904, in The
town of Goldfeld, Esmeralda county,
State of Nevada, the plaintiffs and
Riebel, on the mi part, and +. A.
Montgomery on the other, entered into
an oral agreement and formed a CO.
partnership for the purpose of pros
Meeting for mines, ETC., ETC., in the
Bullfrog mining district aforesaid.
That under said co~partnership agree
ment, in consideration Of the sum Of
s76.0 90 paid him by plaintiffs and Rebel,
the defendant Montgomery agreed to
90 to the said Bullfrog district and de-
vote his time, labor and services to
prospecting for, discovering and To-
eating veins, lodges, mines and mining
claims; in all Of which mines, ETC.,
which may be discovered and located,
the plaintiffs, defendant Rebel and
said Montgomery were each to have an
undivided one-fourth interest.
That thereafter, on or about the first
and second days Of September, 1904, the
said Montgomery located in the names
Of plaintiffs, defendant Rebel and him
self, six claims in said district.
That thereafter. on or about the 9th
of September, and while said co-part-
nership agreement was in full force and
effect, said Montgomery located in his
" name and that Of the defendant
Edwards, the Shoshone mine, and on
the said 9th day of September "plain-
ttfs allege upon information and belief"
that said Montgomery discovered and
located the Shoshone No. 2, Shoshone
No. 3 and Indian Johnnie mines in his
own and Edwards names, in fraud Of
said plaintiffs and Rebel and to their
damage and injury, etc, etc.
That said copartnership began on oil
about the 26th day of August, and die
not terminate until September 8, 1904.
Under the pleadings and the evidence
introduced two main questions loom W
above all others for consideration.
when did the contract begin, ant
the terms and conditions Of the same.
2-Were the claims in dispute, oil
either of them, located by Mr.. Mont.
gomery during the life of the contract.
As to the first question we have t
rely. mainly on the testimony Of the
four principals -Messrs. Fnnegan,
o'Brien, Rebel and Montgomery.
The only material difference in the
statements Of 0'Brien and MontgomerS
is as to the date on which both left
Bullfrog district on their return trip t
Gold6eld, Montgomery holding it wal
on the Sd, and O'Brien on the 4th O
September. Many witnesses testifeC
and some memoranda was offered il
support Of the dates given by eithe
party.
Careful consideration Of the test
mony and data has led me to the con
clusion that the proofs on behalf of tn
plaintiffs were not sufficient to justif
the holding that the %homeward tri
was begun on the 4th and not on the 8
of September, 1904.
As to the date of Montgomery's frs
arrival in the Bullfrog district, it
only necessary to say, that in my opii
ion, the testimony on all sides show a
absolute co~rroboration Of this stat,
Ament, that he arrived there on the il
INF September.
rs The testimony of o. f. Rebel is d,
Terying of much weight. AS to Il