Arizona republican., 1906-03-14
SUIT FOR MILLIONS
 BY 0. A. PHASE
A Counter Action Began Yesterday in
 His Controversy With E. J. Besmer.

AS a sequel to the suit begun some time ago by H. J. 'Beemer of New York. against O. A. Pease, to cancel l mining contract for the purchase by Beemer of Peases interest in the Amalgamated Gold Mines company at Quartzsite for $2.5O0OOO. and which Is pending In the district court of Yuma county, and the alleged charge of em- bezzlement of $3,00O of the funds of the Amalgamated company, preferred by Beemer against Pease, which was dismissed recently, Pease yesterday brought suit against BeeEIer by cross complaint in the Yuma county district court for s2.45O,OOO. balance claimed by Pease to be still due from Beemer on the purchase of Pease's interest in the Amalgamated company.
 In his answer to the Beemer suit which was filed with the cross com . plaint yesterday. Pease first demurs on the ground that the complaint of Beemer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
 But in the event of the overruIfng of the demurrer the defendant. Pease, for a separate and individual answer alleges in part: That he is not a resi- dent of Yuma county but is citizen of Chicago, H. That he never rep resented that he owned all the capital stock of the Diamond Rhyolite Gold Mining & Milling Co., but that he did own sixty-five per cent of it and own ed all the stock of the Amalgamated except fifty-two shares of preferred and 16S,000 shares of common stock.
 That he never stated to Beemer the value of the mining property affected by the litigation, except as his opinion based on the reports of certain min ing experts. He admits making cer- tain agreements mentioned in the com- plaint but no other representations other than the experts reports Ad- mits that Beemer, Charles Theodore HenDig and himself were together on the property but denies, having caus- ed the unearthing of nuggets and other gold deposits, or in other words the salting of the mine
 That Beemer was to make tests and proceed with the development of the property and mill construction notify ing him when he would do so. That he was slow in his operations and was given an extension of time. Denies all fraud in the signing of the contracts referred to. Denies assuring Beemer of an unlimited water supply and al- leges that it was the understanding uf all parties that a pipe line should be built from the Colorado river unless water could be developed by drilling
 Denies all of paragraph five in the complaint except that he got an ad- ditional $5,000 for the exploration for water by wells and paid out $99S3 then tells how the payments were made.
 In paragraph six he alleges that q well was sunk 450 feet which the dc. fendant was informed by the driIlers was believed to have tapped an inex- haustible supply of water though he never reported that fact to the plain tiff except as the opinion of the driH- CTS and his belief and that he advo. cated the sinking of, more wells.
 That fearing his contract would ex. pire before he could keep it's provi- , sions, Beemer approached the defend, ant previous to Jan. s, 1904, and pro- posed that defendant, Pease, should sell his entire interest to him and that he, Beemer, would rush the construc ton of the plant. whereupon Peast signed a contract to that effect
 Denies that Beemer was influenced through Attorney S. s. Parks though Parks was Pease's counsel Admits that plaintiff paid him. Pease. $25. COG but denies that Parks got any pari of it.
 Denies that Beemer spent s22O,O ,O0C legitimately in equipping the property
 Denies that he. Pease shot the bot tom out of the we'll or clogged it up.
 Alleges that the time for mill con- struction was extended to July, 1905
 Alleges the allegations in paragraph Ii to be false and intended to coerce defendant, that plaintiff might avoid paying him a large sum of money, al- leges that the statements of para graph F are false. Admits that he assigned his interest in the Amalga mated to the American Mining & h. vestment company in March, 1905, but denies other allegations in paragraph 1S. Denies the allegations of para graph 17 and says they were made by the plaintiff to defraud the defendant out of $2,45O.OOO and finalk asks of his costs in the case.
 In filing the cross complaint against H. J. Beemer and the Amalgamated