The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1909-11-06
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
Three Civil Cases Come Up Be-
fore Judge Peter Breen
This Week

District Court convened in Eureka on
Monday, Judge Peter Breen presiding,
when the following business was trans
acted:
The case of r. Il. Locke VS.. O. s.
Greenwood. Eugene Geraty, Daniel
Morrison, w. @. Rannells, q. 7. Wied-
man, and the Eureka Windfall Mining
Company. a corporation. was called for
trial by jury as per previous setting.
Thirty of the 35 jurors selected answer
ed to their names. or the remaining
five, three were excused upon the ground
of sickness; one was not served, and
one claimed statutory exemption.
The plaintiff was represented by o. L..
Dimes of the firm of Dimes, Dimes &
Holmes of Denver, and A. b. Lightfoot
OF Ely, aud the defendants by A. E.
Cheney of Reno, r. L. Hubbard of Gold
field. anu A. S. Henderson Of Eureka.
Upon the case being called, much to
the surprise Of Court and counsel for
plaintiff, Mr.. Dimes arose and moved
a dismissal of the case against each and
all Of the five first named defendants,
and waived all claims for damages
against the remaining defendant. the
Windfall Co., aud as the last named de-
PENDANT failed to answer the complaint
its default was entered. Counsel for
plaintiff proceeded to prove mp on the
default, and offered the record of a deed
from the first five defendants to the
company executed subsequently to the
commencement of the suit. Counsel
for defendant thereupon objected to the
admission upon the ground that it was
title acquired subsequent to the insti-
tuition of the suit, and furthermore that
as the company was only organized to
assist the five first named defendants in
their alleged conspiracy to iDjure plain
tiff. and had nothing whatever to dc
with the conspiracy. and had not GUST
ed or threatened to GUST or deprive plain.
tiff of any Of his claimed rights, or to
ipjure the property in any manner,
there was no relief which could be
granted plaintiff under the complaint
and pleadings in the case.
The entire day was consumed by coun-
sci in argument on this new phase OF
the case. Counsel for plaintiff then
withdrew his offer Of the deed and stated
his intention to offer proofs which were
in existence prior to the commence
ment of the suit only, to which counsel
for defendant company also strenuously
objected to. The Court took the ques-
ton under advisement until the follow.
ing day at 2 p. m.
AT 2 p. m. the next day the plaintiff
having shown to the Court that he had
paid all costs accrued in the case against
Greenwood, Geraty. Morrison. Rannells
aud Wiedmap, the case against them
was formally dismissed.
The Court then proceeded to review
the allegations in the complaint in their
entirety, and said that in view of the
unexpected dismissal of the case against
the FIVE alleged conspirators, and for
whose benefit it was set forth in the
| complaint the Windfall Company was
| organized, without in any manner con-
Meeting the company with the cause of
| action as stated in the complaint, the
| Court had grave doubts of the propriety
| of granting injunctive relief against the
last named defendant. even upon its de.
| fault to answer that the dismissal OF
| the action against the alleged real wrong
doors was a confession upon the part of
plaintiff that no cause of action existed
| against them at the present time, aud
| that as the Windfall Company was not
alleged to have had any hand. act or
part in the conspiracy or agreement
between the first five defendants to
| injure plaintiff or threatened his injury,
or threatened to Gust him from the de-
| sired premises. it was not apparent.
without further argument and the cita-
ton of authority, in what name the
Court could receive the proofs offered.
The Court her stated that Mr.. Dimes
had suggested further time to file a brief
on the question. Ten days were given
each party. aud the question stands in
~abeyance until then.