The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-07-19

A PPLlCATloN HAS been made
~ through the district court of
Mineral county, Montana, for
an order restraining Henry M.
Lancaster from further work on the
St Lawrence mine. from shipping ore
from the property and from eXercis-
ing control of the mine in any man
ner; and also asking the court to APP
point a receiver to take charge of the
property. The action Is brought by
Andrew Laidlaw. Incorporated, of
Spokane. The hearing was to be held
at Superior yesterday, Mr., Lancaster,
accompanied by his attorney, Carlton
Fox, of Featherstone & Fox, left for
Superior yesterday morning. 1t was
understood that an effort would be
made to postpone the hearing one
week and to transfer it to Missoula,
which is in the same judicial dis
trict.
The St Lawrence Is situated at the
head of Silver creek, about 6 miles
from Saltese, near the summit of the
Idaho Montana divide. 1t Is a well
known property from which much
high grade copper-gold ore has been
shipped, and recent development un-
der the direction of Mr. Lancaster,
who holds it under bond has diselos-
ed large amount Of shipping ore and
much more of milling grade. Special
interest attaches to the legal proceed
ings just started on account of the
fact that the st. Lawrence is owned
by Angus and Dan Sutherland, of this
city, who have Worked it at intervals
for many years.
Ground Of Action.
Angus and Dan Sutherland own
half Of the St Lawrence and hold the
other half under bond from the Finch
& Campbell estate. Last summer
they gave bond and lease upon the
property to Henry M. Lancaster for
$50, 900, under the terms of which the
first payment is due on September |.
Some time thereafter Mr.. Lancaster
rebonded the property to Andrew
Laidlaw, incorporated, for 100000, re-
tanning the personal management for
the Laidlaw company. He remained
at the property with a small force OF
employees during the winter doing de-
velopment work and getting out ore
for shipment after the heavy snow
had disappeared. According to relia-
BILE information, the first payment un-
der the Laidlaw bond was due last
February. Not being prepared to
make the payment, the time was ex-
tended 80 days, and upon the failure
Of the Laidlaw company to make the
payment then, the bond was forfeited.
1t is also stated that in addition to
failing on the payments, the Laidlaw
company was short on the payrolls
covering the winters work. A few
weeks ago Laidlaw Incorporated, Sc
cured writ of injunction in a Spo-
kane court against Mr.. Lancaster but
it was not served, probably for the
reason that it was found that the ac-
tion would have to be started in Mon
tana court. Assuming that the fore
going Is a correct statement that the
bond was forfeited on account of fail
ure to comply with it's terms, it will
be interesting to see what plea will
be advanced by Laidlaw, incorporated,
in support of its application.
Is Richmond Backing LaidIaw?
Did Laidlaw, Incorporated, fail
to make the first payment under
the bond through lack of financial
resources, or was it for a pur-
pose? Evidently there is no shortage
of funds now when it is desired to
throw the property into the hands of
a receiver and receiver seems to be
about the last thing that is needed for
a mine that has enough ore in sight
to pay all the bonds that have been
placed upon 1t. 1t does not require an
expert to discover that the st. Lawr-
ence would be an exceedingly desir-
able addition to the holdings of the
Richmond. The two properties have
a common end line on the summit of
the divide are on the same rich vein
and their underground workings are
connected Now here is a situation
that gives plaudiblity at least to the
theory that the Richmond company is
playing a strong hand in Injunction
and receivership proceedings against
Mr.. Lancaster in the Montana court
AS stated above, Angus and Dan
Sutherland own half of the st. Lawr-
ence and hold the other half under
bond from the estate OF Finch &
Campbell. That bond is for $4,000 and
is due on the first of next October.