The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-05-10

Ing company against the Silver King
company and Messrs. Kearns and keith
is rapidly drawing to an Issue, tho de-
fendante having fled on Wednesday af-
ternoon their answer to the complaint
1t Will be remembered that the complaint
alleges the defendant company trespassed
upon the Magnolia ground and extracted
therefrom orc to tho value OF $4,000,
and damages are asked TO the amount or
5000, 900.
Answer Complete Denial.
In tho answer filed Wednesday there is
a complete denial OF the allegations In
PENDANTS entered wrongfullys willfully
and 'unlawfully upon the ground OF the
plaintim, and II is alleged that all ores or
metals extracted from the territory III
controversy belonged TO the Silver King
company. Tho answer, alleges that the
defendants have no knowedge, nTst; nIs,n,in 81
company, hence it's existence Is denied.
No Belief as to Ownership.
In answering the second paragraph OF
the complaint, the defendants aliege that
as to the allegations therein. respecting
the ownership OF the mining claims oe-
scrbed, the defendants have no knowl-
edge or information thereof sufficient 10
form a belief In answering paragraph
three OF the complaint, the defendants
deny that within six years laet past OF
through OF from any shafts. located upon
mining claims or premises owned py tne
defendant extended from said shafts
certain concealed or underground work
ings, drifts. tunnels or excavations. enter
into the premises claimed by the plaintiff
in the complaint.
Did Not Enter Premises.
The answer then continues:
And deny that the defendants or ei.n-
cretly willfully, by means OF salo
drifts tunnels or underground workings
or otherwise, have or did enter Into the
ores or minerals found therein vertically
beneath the surface. or within vertical
planes Of the exterior boundaries of said
claims. extended downward yer,icaliy or
nnts or either OF them have converted
any ores or minerals found or extracted
within the said alleged claims aforesaid
or removed from said alleged claims to
their own use, otherwise, belonging to
the plaintifr And these defendants deny
that they or either Of them have VII VII
removed OF converted any quantity or
ores whatever, or of any value Whatever,
from beneath the surface OF said claims.
as alleged in said complaint or otherwise.
No Mining Without Title.
''Theso defendants deny that they. or
either OF them. at any time committed
any trespass whatever upon any mining
claims or property whatever OF the plain
tfr, or mined, removed or converted any
ores or minerals therefrom, without title
thereto And deny that they. or either
of them, at any time, ever %ulfully, un-
lawfully or without right or tltles, mined
or extracted any oree or minerals what
ever from any premises or mining claims
OF said plaintiff. or any of Its predeces-
sors In interest.
Ore Belonged to Silver King.
Defendants further answering said
paragraph OF said complaint, allcge that
all tho ores and minerals ever at any
time found or discovered in or beneath
the surface of the mining claims men
toned and described In the complaint, or
either OF them were and are the proper
ty of and owned by the defendant above
named. Silver King Mining company,
and that said plaintiff has not now. nor
has anv of Its predecessors in title or
interest ever had any estate. right title
I or interest In or TO the ores or minerals
& ever at any time found or discovered in
or beneath said mining claims or any OF
them.
Answering paragraph four of said
complaint these defendants allcge that
as TO the allegations therein contained,
they have not. nor hae either OF them.
knowledge or information thereof, sufii-
Client to form belief, and therefore deny
the same"
Senator Kearns Talks.
ing OF the answer, and asked regarding
the suit filed by Mr. McGregor. The
Senator said:
myself were very much surprised to
learn that Mr.. McGrcgor had commenced
suit against the Silver King. Mr.. Keith
the fact, or before some effort had been
first made to adjust what differences
there may be between US.
Examined Mine by Permission.
'Some time ago Mr.. McGregor and his
engineer were given permission by us to
enter the Silver King mine and to make
a most thorough and lengthy inspection
OF the working in and toward his prop
erty. He was allowed to make surveys,
estimates and maps and for two weeks
accepted of the hospitality of the com
pany, After completing this work. he
left without making any claims upon US
might have been his demands On the
contrary, he began suit against Mr..
Keith, the Silver King and myself for a
large amount of damages
Did Not Pay Expenses.
Tho total amount of ore removed by
us from bhe ground in controversy did not
pay the expense OF extracting It This
Mr.. McGregor knows or should know.
ton. who Is an intelligent gentleman and
thoroughly competent engineer. and who
had free access 10 take all the necessary
measurements and observations, should
have told him.
Could Have Presented Claim.
IT do not believe that Mr.. McGregor Is
n practical miner himself, but one would
naturally expect, who has extended 10
him unStinted CourteSles. tnat he might
enlighten himself thoroughly as TO the
exact conditions. that he would have at
least made some claim TO tho officers Of
the company, and not walt until Mr..
Keith and myself were absent from the
State nd rush into court with an ale
CATION lat is both unreasonable and
false.
Will Defend Their Interest.
''His claim. OF our differences, had they
been properly presented. could have been
canyasscd together. and they might have
been capable of being adjusted without
q resort being made to tho courts had
Mr.. McGregor desired It 80. The Silver
King people do not want anything that
does not belong to them they do not
want 10 secure anything that Mr. Nc
Gregor Is entitled to. but being In court
we necessarily must protect our rights
In the matter to the utmost