Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-07-01
TRIAL WILL Be
FINISHED HERE
Arguments in the Grand Central
Mammoth Mining Case to
Be Heard in Salt Lake.
ATTORNEYS MAKE REQUEST.
viii Have Advantages of Larger Lii
brary--Important Points
Have Arisen.
Special Correspondence.

Special Correspondence.
Nephi, Utah. June 9s,--The trial OF
the Grand Central Mining company
against the Mammoth Mining company
has been In progress here for the past
two weeks before Judge Greenwood. The
evidence on the part of the plaintiff was
concluded the early part or the week'
and that of the defendant Is now prac-
ttcally all in. Just before the Adjourn
lnent of court last night both parties
Joined In request 10 the court to have
the remainder of the case heard AZ SAT-
Lake. AS q reason for this they urge
that the testimony was about Compel
ed, and In the arguments OF the case
they would need access 10 larger "
brary than Nehpi afforded. as the law
points to be brought out on the arsu,
i'm portant as had been evidenced dur
Ing the trial when some legal questions
arose which. on account Of the absence
OF authorities, were unable to be pre-
scented and were passed subject TO tur-
Their argument at the close of the test-
mony. 49,.
Ing the court out OF the district but
In view of the Importance of the case;
and being anxious to hear the Josafs
phase fully presented and IN view or
litigation were interested as property
owners and large taxpayers In the coun-
~ finally submitted to the ureeh' re. re-
quest of counsel and ADJOURNED me
further hearing of the case ~ Monday
monrning next. when II will be re-
sumed al Salt Lake city.
During the trial OF the case, some
very important questions In mining Jaw
have arisen, Among others is the CON
tention Of the defendants that the tlie
10 the ore bodies in dlsput had not been
determined by he decisions Heretofore
rendered In the litigation between me
parties; because In that litiagtioh the
case was simply heard upon the com
plant and the defendants counter
claim which alleged the apex OF the ore
bodies in dispute TO be IN the trst nor
thern extension OF the Mammoth-that
court entering a judgment dismissing
said counter claim, still leaving unde-
termined the point as 10 where the apex
Another point raised by the defend
ants Is that the plaintiff has failed TO
prove that the ore bodies In question
are owned by IL. maintaining that inc
proof now before the court shows corr
clusively that the apex OF said ore peas
is not within the claims of the Grand
Central Mining company but mas lts
apex in other grounds than that or the
Sllveropolis claim owned by the plain
tiff and claim that said ore Dodlcs IN
disput apex In lot 3S belonging 10 de-
Still another point urged by the de-
PENDANT IS that the transfer OF the
property from the Grand Central Min
ing company of Utah 70 the Grand CEN
latter company is now the plaintin IN
this case) liz ultra wires and void. Tor
the reason that the transfer IRON the
Utah corporation to the Colorado corpor-
alton OF ali the property of the tUah
corporation, In the maner in which 1t
was transferred was contrary to law
and against public policy and that the
Grand Central Mining company Of Col
and cannot therefore recover in this
action.