Gilpin observer., 1919-06-12
TRIAL OF THE LOWE
MCFARLAND SUIT
Plaintiff Loses Out on Wrecking
of Mill-Gets Royalties.

Maud A. Lowe VS.. Peter McFar-
lane, to recover damages for the
wrecking of the Frontenac mill
and for the extraction of ore from
the Frontenac mine, was conclud-
ed last Friday evening in the dis
trict court.
Following S. B. Tyler who tes-
titled as to the efficiency of the
mill, H. P. Lowe was called and
also testified as to the mills effic-
iency, and that he did not give his
consent to the wrecking of the
mill and did not know anything
about it.
Mrs. Lowe was called but dis
played an astounding lapse of
memory and couldn't remember
anything.
Peter McFarlane was the first
witness for the defense and testi-
fed that he had several interviews
with Mr.. Lowe in reference to the
wrecking of the mill for the pur-
pose of paying the taxes and that
Mr.. Lowe consented. After these
interviews Mr.. Lowe left Denver
and could not be located, and in
the meantime the taxes were pill
ing up and in order to save the
property from complete loss to
the creditors, and with the con-
sent of over 81 per cent of the
owners, dismantled the mill and
sold the machinery to the Morse
Bros. in Denver for $4,000 and
paid the taxes out of the money
received.
j. c. Jensen followed Mr.. Nc
Farlane to refute the testimony
of Mr.. Lowe that he did not know
anything about the wrecking of
the mill until November, 1917, up
on his return from South Amer
lea. Mr.. Jensen testified to the
fact that he met Mr.. Lowe at the
Blackstone hotel in Chicago about
the middle of February 1917, and
apprised him of the fact that the
mill bad been wrecked.
Norton H. Brown testified as
to the saving made by the mill
about 73 per cent, but that the ore
sent to the mill was of entirely
too low a grade, and the opera
tion each month resulted in a net
loss to the company.
In the second cause of action
suit for the recovery of the value
of the ore extracted from the
Frontenac mine by the Frontenac
Leasing Co., and subsequently by
Mr.. McFarlane individually, Mr..
McFarlane thru his counsel ac-
knowledged an Indebtedness to
Mrs. Lowe, owner of 41 per cent
of the Frontenac mine, of some
thing over 5000 in royalties up to
January 1, 1919. The testimony
showed that up to that time the
lease given originally to Robert
Wilkinson expired and had not
been renewed by Mrs. Lowe, but
that Mr.. McFarlane continued op-
erations with the consent of 81
per cent of the owners, but neg
lected to put this agreement on
record. Counsel for plaintiff de-
manded on account of this agree
ment not being recorded, al per
cent of the gross output of the
mine from January l, 1919, to
date, without any deductions for
expense of mining.
The case was given to the jury
at $50 Friday afternoon and they
returned a verdict at 1880, allow
the plaintiff no damages resulting
from the dismantling of the mill.
but allowed S11S423, which in
cluded the 5000 plus, acknowledge
ed by Mr.. McFarlane and royal
ties on ore extracted since jan
uary l, 1919, and small sum due
Mrs. Lowe from the receipts of
the sale of machinery from the
mill that was not paid out for
taxes.
Edwin H. Park, of Denver, rep
resented the plaintiff, and Chase
Withrow and Fred Cullom, the
defendant.
The case of Swarthout VS.. Coyle
was set over until the September
term.