Amador ledger., 1909-10-15
GARIBALDI-GRILLO
GRAVEL MINE CASE
An Injunction Prayed for pending
Further Proceedings

and the Grilo Brothers on the other, in
volving the right of possession to the
valuable Santirfo gravel claim in Vol
cano, is still long way from being
ended. AT the trial of the suit the tes-
timony was such that the court held that
neither of the contestants was entitled
to judgment. This week the case en-
tered upon new phase by the
filing on the part of the plaintiffs OF the
following affidavit for an Injunction
Frank Garibaldi and Frank Devencenzi,
plaintiffs, VS.. John B. Grillo, James
Grillo, Sr., and August Grillo, defen-
dants.
Frank Garibaldi and Frank Devencenzi
being first duly sworn, depose and say
that they are the plaintiffs in the above
entitled action; that the land in dispute
in said action is public mineral, gold
bearing, placer mining ground, situate
in the Volcano mining district, Amador
county California, particularly described
as follows: The east half of west half OF
southwest quarter of northeast quarter
and the west half OF the east half of the
southwest quarter of the northeast quar-
ter of section p, township7 north, range
IL east, M. D. B. and M, containing 20
acres; that the above entitled action has
been brought on for trial heretofore in
the above entitled court. submitted for
decision to the hon. judge of this court,
who rendered his opinion in writing that
neither plaintiffs nor defendants are en-
titled to any relief in this action, giving
as his reason for denying reli eff to plain
tiffs that the evidence failed to show
valid discovery of gold by them an
also giving as one of the reasons of
denying relief to defendants, that they
had made no valid discovery of gold
within the limits OF disputed territory
until after the filing of their cross
complaint.
Atlantis alege that no Judgment has
been entered in the above entitled
action, but that there will be delay in
entering judgment in such action; that
it is the purpose of plaintiff, in good
faith, to move for new trial sAcrein,
and il necessary to prosecute this action
to a final determination even to the
highest courts having jurisdiction of
same; that atlantis believe that the nee
essary proof was made at such trial on
the part of plaintiffs regarding discovery
of gold bearing minerals within the
limits of said disputed territory; but
that failrue of the court reporter to get
complete records of testimony has resulted
in said testimony not being in the record
herein. Atlantis allege that notwith-
standing the decision of the court that
neither plaintiffs not defendants are en-
titled to any relief in this action, the
defendants have entered into said dis
puted ground, and are actively engaged
in removing gold bearing gravel from
said land and beneath the surface of
land in controversy; that they arc
running gravel taken therefrom through
a mill and extracting the minerals there
from that they are now engaged in run
ming said mill daily whereas it was
formerly their practice to only run said
mill every ten days or two weeks; that
said defendants are extracting from said
mine and converting to their own use
gold bearing gravel of great value, the
exact value of which is not now known
to atlantis, and plaintiffs have no
security against loss in case they should
prevail in this action; that defendants
are working said nine on shares with
some of the parties working therein
that said defendants, their agents, en-
ployes and associates threaten to con-
tinue to work said claim and to remove
the gold therefrom, and to appropriate
the same to their own use, and if not
restrained by Injunction from this
honorable court will so continue to work
said claim, and to extract the gold bear
ing rock therefrom and to convert the
same TO their own use, thus rendering
said claim valueless to plaintiffs, or
greatly reducing its value in case they
should finally prevail; If not soon pre-
vented from continuing said mining
operations said mine will be in great
measure exhausted.
That the injury to the plaintiffs will
be material, certain and great, as well
as irreparable if the relief prayed for
is denied, should they in the END prevail
while the granting Of an injunction
pendente lite will make the loss to the
defendants comparatively small should
thew win in the final outcome OF the