Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-06-02
MINING, BUSINESS AND STOCKS.
CHARGES SILVER king
With BEING UNFAIR
Asserts Company Took Ont Million
Then offered SIS. 900 for Claims.

Further accusations against the Sill
Yer King Coalition Mines company are
made in the amended reply to the
answer of the defendant iii the case OF
the Conkling Mining company "a gainst
the silver King Coalition Mines COM
panS. fled in the United States cir
cut court yesterday. The document.
charge the company With being o
Tenant in common With the plaintiff.
z nG that as such failed to notlf.stit or
the presence of orc ii the Conlsling
claim and scooped out at least $1,000
600 worth of ore and then attempted to
buy the claim for $4,000.
The amended reply which was pre-
pared by Day IIoppauEf declares
that the contention of the Silver King
that the description Of the Conisling Isl
not correct. is not well taken aud as
serts that the defendant cannot aues-s
ton this as it OWNS a quarter interest
in the claim. Although the claims.
have been patented for Ia years, it is
Econtended that no dispute has ever
arose as to the boundaries.
The Silver King succeeded to q
quarter interest In the property
through the consolidation OF the
Kearns-Keiti Mining company and the
Silver King Mining company In 1907.
q 1t is charged that the defendant
company secretly extended the AZ
lance tunnel at the property through
and underneath the Conkling claims,
which are the Conllling and Arthur,
sometime in 1900 From the tunnel a;
crosscut was driven and from this
properaN5it Is charged that something
like S1,000.00O worth Of ore was taken.
1t is declared that the defendant now
wishes to have 15SIa feet excluded from
the controversy and this distance s
believed to contain at least s2,500,0o0
worth OF ore.
DEMANDED ACCOUNTING.
B The Conllling company which is con-
trollet by Nicholas Treweek and j.
Leonard Busch. declares that Its sus-g
.pictons We're first aroused that some
thing was wrong In 1907. The officers
of the company as they now are. but
simply owners of a three-quarters in
admission to the silver King work.
fings aud We're refused, On Dec. 49,
1907, they demanded an accounting of
the ore taken from the ConlSlins and
Arthur claims.
The reply of the Silver King COM
,Danyit is commended was that it own
ed an interest in the claims and that
If found. to pay for the development
expenses. The company is also said
to have expressed surprise that III
accounting should be asked for.
4 Later tits asserted that the Silver
King people approached John NJ.
.DaughertS, i'll whose name the prop
erty stood. endeavoring to secure title
TO the property for $4,000 The IRE
week and Busch interest was held
by in 5Daugherty's name to secure am
Indebtedness TO John A, Creighton
AT the same time that SIT. 900 was Of
fered for the Conkling claims, it is as
serted that the Silver King paid $3.50
900 for two claims fromSthe Belmont
Mining company. These claims 1t is
asserted overlap the Conkling claims
which have a prior right.
Z The reply further asserts that on
account of the length OF time since
the property was patented. its inacces-
ssibility, being covered with heavy nii-
$derbrusi and heavy SHOWS most of the
year, the land marks Of the survey
have been nearly obliterated. For that
reason the description given in the
patent is the only description that can
be given accurately of the property.
The complaint prays that the court
grant 1t the right to call upon the
Silver King for an accounting of all
the ores extracted from the claims