Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-03-16
LOG AN.
MR.. M'ALLISTER'S ANSWER.
He Makes Denial OF Allegations Com
tanned In Recent Suit Filed.


Logan March 18th. attorneys OF
Mr. John A, MCAllister. Messrs, AIoyle
and Van Colt have prepared an answer
on behalf OF their client, against whom
suit was recently planted by Messrs
Cranney, Kim ball, Carbon and others
| The answer dnlitS tho purchase OF the
mining property referred to, and says
that the various plaintiffs and MI. Me
Alister made their purchases sep
arately and independently OF each
other all paying Ernest H. Wilson
their several amounts.
He claims that the plaintiff. l., c..
F>arr. purchased from A. T. Cranneg-
and that he subsequently bought 500
shares Of stock at Zoe.
Thai plaintiffs Murdoch and West
bought from Wilson part OF the 1a,ooo
shares bonus stock, and thereafter
Murdoch and West sold 10 McAlllster
and others at a profit, with fun knowl-
edge Of all the facts.
That Cranney transacted all his
business through Wilson, and the de-
PENDANT had nothing whatever to do
with the same, excepting the delivery
OF stock on his order TO the plaintiffs
Kimbal, Carbon. Palmer, Ballard and
Davis,
Alleges that on or about the 18th
day Of November, 1906. said Wilson'S
right To sell said stock or interests IN
said property having been questioned
and denied by the owners OF the same,
this defendant assisted In securing a
settlement O1 said Wilson'S differences
with said owners under and bv which
the defendant and the plaintiffs re-
ceived the lnters~l in said pTOperty,
for which they had paid said Wilson
as aforesaid. and also secured for aald
Wilson 1900 shares OF the capital stock
Of the coronation tiarein called bonus
stoek1, which was subsequently organ
tied for the purpose If operating sald
urop0rty. IN lieu IF aid Wilson'S al
legged interest IN said property and IN
settlement ~ his claim connected
Herewith against lhe said owners ~
said propert1 That the plaintiffs I'M
der said settlement, received stock In
said company Uuon the basis atorc-
said to-wl huudredtl1 mart Of tho
stock N said company FOR 81 100,
'THat the OWNERS Of said property
ana sall WILSON In making said settle
mont NJ thclr differences and nv which
the RIGHTS and claims or sRld Wilson
ana the parties hereto were adjusted,
prepaYed q contract on written state
neut ~ said acrs!mcns I'm witch the
name Of this drfeudant WAS inserted
In leu or chat NJ Hait NVilenn ls corr
lraciInv party That this defendant
objected 10 the same. wherfuu0n III
WAS urged ~ said partles that II would
make no difference and upon which
abatement this hefe1tAant was induced
IA sign said agreement as n contracting
PARTY. when I'm truth ma fact NE name
was used SOLELY ~ AN RNcOmvnn fatlnn
FOR aail nNrtles Thet undor said NPnec-
,nent n u.as prnvilleH thot this defend
tnt should ln nernirtc-l ~ purohNse le,-
fO0 sharos ~ the stock mr. said coNnpuv
nt N ccnts per share, AMI thai he
should have as bonus, thh sum Af r. r.
ON shares ~ said comnanv which
srolld ne issuod ~ him or Ia whom he
MIGHT dosinmato uUon me king the nav
rents as provided n sali awreoinrnt
rrhat tho monev as arorneaIf paid 10
tah Wilson. was iT~ nsfeNef nv hlTl
Ia anrl rnrnOrrilen IN pavNieni for salf
~ -nn Shares ems that Tho said 1900
sharas 10 NJ lseped 10 Tho deeenIsnl os
"a BONUS WAS for The sole nurnose on
aitnsttnu nuA seiilln1 the said claims
M said Wilson and ihat II was un-
d,1stona by the ssi7 eH ners ef said
properls ana Ih- Defendant and SAIL