Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1910-06-09
EXAMINATION
Of WITNESSES

deceased, now Blanche Il. Pursei, subs
stituted plaintiff, VS.. the Reading Iron
company, constituting one of the most
important civil actions ever institut-
ed in this county, went on trial yes
terday morning before his honor,
Judge Evans.
Court convened at 10 o'clock. By the
time the Jurors had filed into the box
and kthe- attorneys had taken their
places the auditorium was pretty we'll
filled with witnesses and Others who
were present as spectators, attracted
by the Importance of the case.
In addition to W. J. Baldy, of this
city, senior counsel, the plaintiff is
representedl by eeAlbert W. johnson and
Fred Q. Bower, of Lewisburg; A. S.
Ashbridge, James Mercer and J. War
rem Davis, of Philadelphia. At the
defendants table are seated Hon.
Grant Herring, of Sunbury; jefferson
Snyder, of Reading, and Ralph Kis-
ner, of this city. Collectively the at.
torneys constitute an imposing array
of legal talent, the like of which has
very rarely been identified with any
trial in MontouI county.
The case was opened by Albert w.
johnson, who spoke briefly but clear
ly, outlining the plaintiffs case. In
1862 Daniel Pursel was the owner of a
farm of 14S acres in Valley township,
which contained large quantities of
iron ore. On June 27, 1862, Daniel Pursel
and his wife made deed to Waterman
q Beaver, conveying to them the right
to mine the iron ore on the farm. In
1868 Daniel Pursel died. In 1869 letters
of administration were granted on his
estate to William r. and John G.. Pur.
sci. In 1896 John G. PurseI died. In
1909 William r. Pursel died and his
daughter Blanche was substituted. who
Is now the active plaintiff.
The deed made by Daniel PurseI and
wife in 1862 conveyed all the ore in
the tarm-a tract of 14S acres-to
Waterman and Beaver. In the contract
Waterman q Beaver were to mine at
least, 5000 tons of ore each year until
the ore became exhausted or the cost
OF mining became equal to the value
OF the ore taken out of the ground.
The consideration for the ore was the
amount of royalty at the rate of seven.
ty-five cents per ton.
Waterman & Beaver operated the
mine until about 1880, when they sold
out to the Pennsylvania Iron company.
which stepped into the shoes of Water.
man d Beaver and were bound by the
deed which bound the latter.
Later the Pennsylvania Iron CON-
pany conveyed the property to the
Montonr Iron & Steel company, which
took up all the rights arising out of
tie deed until 1Ssg, when it made tbe
last payment and ceased mining iron
ore.
In 1896, the property passed into the
hands OF the Reading Iron company.
the defendant, which in turn stepred
into the shoes of Waterman & Beaver
and, it is held, is liable for all their
agreements. The Reading Iron Co. has
mined no ore and there is due the
/ plalntlh under the deed made bv
Daniel Pursel and wife to Waterman
d Beaver in 1862, 75 cents for 5000
tons of ore, annually, from 1889 to the
! present time. The plaintiff also holds
that the Reading Iron company since
buying the property is exercising the
right of ownership on the Pursel farm
and is using it today.
The plaintiff offered in evidence the
letters of administration granted to
William r. and John G.. Pursel ON the
estate of Daniel Pursel; also letters of
administration. d. b. N, September
n, 1909, on the estate of Daniel Pur
sci TO Blanche Pursel, who gave bond
with sufficient surety
The plaintiff offered in evidence the
deed transferring the tract in 1911
from Daniel Pursel, ST., to Daniel
Pu1sel, Jr.
1t also proposed to offer in evidence
the original deed set forth in the
plaintiffs declaration to Waterman q
Beaver for the ore, with all the GOV.
enants referred to and on which the
case rests-for the purpose of showing
the liability of the defendant to paw
royalties agreed upon in deed to Wat
erman & Beaver.
At this point Mr. Herring for the
defendant objected to the admission of
the original deed made to Waterman
d Beaver unless the plaintilf agreed
to follow it with a subsequent deed
made between the heirs of Daniel Pur.
sci and the Montour Iron company.
which absolutely modifies and changes
prices, terms, &c
The plaintiffs attorneys replied tha
the time had not yet arrived for the
admission of any subsequent deed.
This being the case Nj. Herring
formally objected to the admission of
the original deed, which objection was
overruled by the court.
The deed transferring the property
from the Pennsylvania Iron company
to the Montour Iron company was ad.