The Virginia enterprise., 1912-03-01
OLIVER COMPANY ASKS 7.
DISMISSAL Of SUIT
Files Answer: to Injunction
Brought by Mrs. Liend, Of Hib-
bing, Making General Denial Of
Complaint.

oIOu&ut py MIS' 1aASuO, VI Rid
bing, Making General Denial Of
Complaint.
Through it's attorneys, Baldwin
& Baldwin of Duluth, the Oliver
Iron Mining company has filed an
answer to the injunction proceed
ings instituted against it some
time ago by Elizabeth Hukari
Liend, which resulted in a COM
plete suspension Of operat tions il
the Hull-Rust and Sellers open pit
mines. The case is set for hear
ing before Judge Martin Hughes
in chambers at Hibbing Marc!, 8
but may be transferred by appli-
cation to one Of the judges of the
district court of Duluth.
The answer is a general denial
Of each and every allegation of
the complaint. 1t is alleged that
whatever interest in certain lots
the plaintiff has is subject to the
lease Of the property held by the
Lake Superior Consolidated Iron
Mines and subject to it's rights
under the lease to enter upon the
tracts in question and mine and
remove all ores for a period of
fifty years is cited.
Another allegation is that the
plaintiff never owned any Of the
iron ore under the surface Of any
of the property in issue and that
whatever interest she ever had is
subject to the right of the Lake
Superior Consolidated Iron Mines,
it's agents and servants, to enter
upon and remove the iron ore
therefrom.
1t is admitted that in the work
Of mining it necessarily used dy-
Mantle and powder for loosening
the frozen earth so that it could be
removed with steam shovels, but
that in the use of such dynamite
and powder blasts it proceeded
with due care and caution and
with as little inconvenience as
possible to persons and property
in the neighborhood of said work
in the usual way Of mining ore at
IIibbing and other mining locali-
ties.
Paragraph 10 of the answer in
dicateS the company's position as
follows:
"Allegcs that the said village
Of llibbing is mining town; that
almost it's sole industry is and al
ways has been the mining of iron
ore; that almost all the population
in and around said village are the
miners engaged in mining iron
ore, and the tradesmen who de-
pend upon said miners for their
business and support; that with
out said mines there would be no
reason or excuse for village at
the present site of Hibbing and
there would probably be no vii
lage there or in that vicinity; that
defendant was working said mine
up to the commencement Of this
action, employing several hundred
men therein, who would have been
idle or would have been required
to seek work elsewhere than at
or in the vicinity Of Hibbing,
where their homes are, and if de-
fcndant had not continued to- op-
crate said mine during the winter
months and at the time of the
commencement of this action.
rather than during the warmer
weather and when the earth was
not frozen. partially for the ad-
vantage of said miners and for
said village and to offer employ
ment to said miners at time
when they. would otherwise he
idle. > T.
1t is admitted that in the work
Of operating the Sellers mine and
removing the overburden it has
rut into Fifth avenue and Pine
streets, hut only within limits
where the property abutting is
owned by the mining company
and that the streets in the por-
tions affected were never improv-
ed by the village:
1t is admitted also that fence
was placed across Pine street for
the purpose Of preventing people
from falling into the pit caused
by it's work and that it is necessa.
ry for the protection of pedestri.
ans.
1t is further alleged, upon in.
:formation and belief, that the ac.
tion was begun by the plaintiff or
the advice and with the aid and
assistance of others "to restrain
this defendant from mining and
removing said ore until defendant