Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-05-10
SILVER KING FILES
ANSWER IN COURT
Denies that MagnoIia-St. Louis
Mining Co. Owns Any Property
In Camp OF Park City.
ADMITS EXTRACTION OF ORE
From Ground In Dispute. But Manager
kearns Says Company Lost ca
Money In so Doing.

The Silver King Mining company, by
David Keith and Thomas Kearns, presl-
dent and manager, respectively, filed
an answer In the federal court yester-
day afternoon In the trespass and
damage suit Instituted some time ago
by the Magnolia-St Louis Mining COM
pany, OF which James McGregor Is
manager. The amount Of damage
prayed for In the complaint was $780,
900, or three times the value of the ore
alleged to have been extracted from
one OF the levels run into the plaintiff
company's ground from workings with
In the territory Of the defendant cor
poration. The answer Is brief one
and general denial Is made to the
allegation set forth In the complaint
and while admitting that the Silver
King company extracted ore from the
ground In question, the claim is made
that II had right so to do, insisting
that the ownership OF said ores was
vested In the Silver King company by
reason of the laws of apex. on this
point the answer recites:
These defendants deny that they, or
either of them, at any time committed
any trespass whatever upon any min
ing claims or property whatever OF the
plaintiff, or mined. removed or con-
verted any ores or minerals therefrom.
without title thereto And deny that
they, or either OF them. at any time,
ever willfully, unlawfully or without
right or titles mined or extracted any
ores or minerals whatever from any
premises or mining claims of said
plaintiff. or any of Its predecessors IN
interest.
SILVER KING CLAIMS ORE.
Defendants further answering said
paragraph OF said complaint, allege
that all the ores and minerals ever at
any time found or discovered in or
beneath the surface Of the mining
claims mentioned and described In the
complaint, or either OF them, were and
are the property Of and owned by the
defendant above named. Silver King
Mining company. and that said plain
tiff has not now, nor has any of It's
predecessors In title or interest ever
had any estate, right title or interest
in or 10 the ores or minerals ever at
any time found or discovered In or be-
meath said mining claims or any of
them
Answering paragraph four OF said
complaint, these defendants allege that
as to the allegations therein contained,
they have not, nor has either OF them,
knowledge or information thereof, suf-
fclent to form a belief, and therefore
deny the same"
WHAT MANAGER KEARNs SAYS.
Manager Thomas Kearns Of the de-
PENDANT company made statement
concerning the case following the filing
Of the answer. copies Of which were
sent two Of the morning papers, Here
is what he says.
MY associates In the Silver King
and myself were very much surprised
to learn that Mr. McGregor had COM
menced suit against the Silver King,
Mr.. Keith and myself without some In
timation OF the fact, or before some ef-
fort had been first made to adjust what
differences there may be between us
Some time ago Mr.. McGregor and
MS engineer were given permission by
us to enter the Silver King mine and
TO make "A most thorough and lengthy
inspection OF the workings in and to-
ward his property He was allowed
to make surveys, estimates and maps,
and for two weeks accepted of this hos
pltality of the company. After COM
pleting this work. he left without max
ing any claims upon us and without at
tempting to adjust what 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.
THE total amount Of ore removed by
us from the ground in controversy did
not pay the expenses OF extracting IT,
This Mr., McGregOr knows or should
know, and If he does not, his engineer.
Mr. Burton. who Is an intelligent gem
tleman and thoroughly competent on
gineer. and who had free access to take
all the necessary measurements and
observations. should have told him.
II do not believe that Mr. McGregor
Is practical miner himself. but one
would naturally expect. who has eX-
tended to him unstnted courtesies, that
he might entghten himself thorough
~ as to the exact conditions, that he
would have at least made some claim
to the officers Of the company. and not
walt until Mr.. Keith and myself were
absent from the state and rush into
court with an allegation that Is both
unreasonable and false.
His claim, or our differences, had
they been properly presented. could
nave been canvassed together. and they
might have been capable of being ad-
justed without a resort being made 10
the courts had Mr. McGregor desired
1t so. The Silver King people do not
want anything that does not belong
TO them: they do not want to secure
that Mr. McGregor Is entitled
TO, but being In court, we necessarily
must protect our rights in the matter
to tho utmost,
Litigation is an unfortunate matter
In any case. and under any circum-
stances, but IA Mr.. McGregor displayed
undue haste TO get this matter into
court II must remain there for adjust
ment. And as one of the stock
holders and manager OF the company.
10 the stockholders of the Silver King
can say that when the matter Is
tdjusted It will he found that neither
Mr.. McGregor nor his company has
-.