Seward weekly gateway., 1907-05-18
FIGHTING GREAT ]
 GRUBSTAKE CASE
Mrs. Catherine Elliott COnteSting for Share in Vast Copper
 Properties.

One of the most remarkable "grub- stake" lawsuits ever recorded in tRe courts is that of Catherine May El- liott. divorced wife of Harry Curtis Elliott, against him and the Hubbard Elliott Company, which was tried be- fore Judge WickerSham in the district court at Valdez in March and taken by the judge under adviscmenU. Itis cX- pccted that he will render judgment by the time he winds up the present term at Juneau. The property is worth several millions at a low estimate
 Mrs. Elliott sues for an interest in all the Hubbard Elliott mining pro- pcrties in Alaska upon the claim that she furnished Harry Curtis Elliott then her husband, with the original outfit with which he came to Alaska in 1898 and that she also sent him money aflerward. This claim is speci- fcalIy denied by Elliott and his father.
 Vast Interests Involved
 The interesting features of the liu- gation are the smallness of the pur- ported grubstake compared to the eX- raordiuary value of the property in- yolved, the apparent support of the woman'S claim by documentary evi- dcnce, and the bitterness with which the EIiotts, particularly Henry P. Elliott, pater and thelr attorneys denouuce Mrs Elliott as clever ad- venturess who has SkiIfully woven into a plausible array of evidence casual and disconnected memoranda referring to totally different matters of buSi- ness. The story of Mrs. Elliott, made plausible by letters, notes and other instruments of writing, is as follows.
 In the fall of 1897 Harry Elliott, a resident of Chicago, conceived the de- sire 10 join in the Alaska-Yukon rush but he had no money. Mrs. Elliott went with him 10 the house of Mont gomery Ward, helped him to select, and paid for with her own money an outfit which was said to be the best individual outfit ever taken into the Copper river country. The value of .tbp outft was conceded in the teSti- mony of both sides.
 Wants Tore Money
 Harry Elliott went to Seattle and there ran short of money. He wired to his father for a remittance and Elliott senior refused, although he was drawing a good salary as an official of the Milwaukee railroad, because he had no confidence in his sons project to get rich out of Alaska mines and because he believed his son would dissipate any money sent to him. The senior Elliott had refused previously to advance money 10 his son for the AlaSkd venture
 When Henry P. Elliott refused to send money to Harry Elliott in Seat tie, his daughter-in-law offered to sign a note for Sl5O if II. ?. Elliott would advance the money, which was appar- ently done. The note signed by Cath erine NJ. Elliott, marked paid in full across its face, was introduced in evil dence. II. F. Elliott denied any recollection of thstransaction although he could not account for the note.
 Document Refers to Grubstake
 As further evidence of her grub stake interest Mrs. Elliott produced in evidence a document she calls a will, . which Harry Elliott executed the night before he left Chicago to come to Alaska the first time. It recites merely that Catherine May Elliott is to have a one-half interest in all prop erty he might acquire in Alaska and . that she had furnished funds . for the venture. The paper is not . drawn in the form of a will but is a mere memorandum written by Elliott, but she testified that he told her it was will, executed according to promise.
 Harry Elliott denied that Mrs. Elliott ever gave him any money to outfit him for the Alaska trip. He that she gave him money but claimed it was to pay premiums on life insurance in her favor. He also claims that he never discovered any thing while prospecting on his first grubstake but made all his discover