Show THE TIEWAUKEE T A Connndram in the District Court In the regular order of business on Tuesday in the Third District Court the case ofE B Shoebridge et al vs M Goldberg was called and proceedings commenced This case involves the celebrated Tiewaukee mine of Bingham considered one of the wealthiest in the whole canyon can-yon The property was purchased by Mr Goldberg and he developed it until an immensely rich body of ore was discovered Other claims were then brought actively forward against the mine and the one now pending was iustitutei by the plaintiff plain-tiff on the ground of continuity of the vein they claiming that the Tiewaukee vein was a continuation of a vein which lawfully belonged to them Of course the defense reseats re-seats the allegation and the suit is a resultant The case has gone through a number of preliminary stages and ha been delayed for various reaSonS rea-SonS but it came up as stated on Tuesday A jury was called but before it was impaneled the defense challenged the array of jurors for this term of the court and upon an affidavit which they filed moved to quash the array This affidavit set forth in substan that M Shaughnessy is interested in the suit being one of the plaintiffs that he is marshal of the territory terri-tory that as marshal of the territory terri-tory he served the venires for jurors and drew the jurors from the box that having done so in this case the array of jurors for the term in this case was illegal In plain words they moved that the array be quashed on the ground that according accord-ing to a great many authorities the fact that a sheriffor marshal by inferenceserves the venire for jurors for a term of court at which the jurors are to try a case in which he is interested invalidates the jury and constitutes sufficient grounds to quash the array The defense argued the motion to quash and read quite anumber of authorities author-ities insupport of the position thus taken The court adjourned before the plaintiffs could reply so that the motion will be argued this morning by the plaintiff Bennett 4 Hark ness 41 Xirkpatrick and Sutherland 4t McBride appear for the defendant de-fendant and Judge Van Zile and A S Patterson Esq represent the plaintiff It is the evident intention of the defense to have the case continued if possible They have manifested a disposition heretofore here-tofore to avoid trial for reasons said not to be caused by fear of the result but for grounds best known to themselves The case is occasioning considerable consider-able interest from the value of the property and from the increasing peculiarity of the proceedings |