OCR Text |
Show (By Doaorot Tolorarih ) PIOCIIH NEWS. Continuance of tlie Ureat Alining Hull NewBjiaiiei- Klargcmiit. (gpocia.1 to thoJIIenALD.) Pioohu, 7. W. H. Raymond, first witness this morning, said he had eccq tho original record of the consolidation in the book. Ho never saw the original article of consolidation. It had Dot been in Raymond and Ely's office fur two years, uud nevor was in the possession posses-sion ol Henry Riymond, as deputy recorder. re-corder. It is not io the company's office hero, (lo has no doubt there is a title somewhere, and had never denied the existence of tho consolidation paper. Thomas Bjx, next witness, aid he saw the original of the consolidation at Warm Springs. Alter reeordiog it wis left with Stephen Sherwood; he had uot seen it hiuuu but has a oupy. Stephen Slier wood called, said he wrote the consolidation contract. Shutt copied it. it was then signed and recorded. re-corded. It was loft in tho recorder's otB'-c. J. N. Vandertuark Bworn. He Baid he saw the original contract, before, at tue time, aud after it was signed, and had not seen it sinoe. It was recorded re-corded Thomas M. Box called; said he saw i the original contract in tho possession of Stephen Sherwood. He saw it after 1 July, JS04, in the recorder's office, and , has a truo cpy at Salt Luke. A. Bar-: ber, tho next witness sworn, said he saw the consolidation in the recorder's otfioo, whilo ho was deputy reoorder, but never saw the origiual. He looked for it after Put ton lost the books. Jos. E. Patton, who has been in jail some time for refusing to produce the books, was next called and s sorn. Ho said ho put tho boiks in tho tale, after ho was appointed deputy recorder, and never oxamiued the papers to soo whether the consolidation ocntraot was amocg them. Ho broLt tho box of papers nd left them uih Perley and Hives and nevor had tho original contract in his possession: Afterwards he took the same papers away. D. W. Pcricy was asked concerning tho consolidation paper. Ho said he nevor saw it. J. H. Hardy said he searched the box, but could not find the copy of tho consolidation. Vandermark was recalled and said he had a correct copy of the consolidation consolida-tion oontraot copied from the books. Judgo Garbcr offered a copy in evidence. evi-dence. The defendant objected because, be-cause, first, it was ottered as a copy of the original not accounted lor, etc., etc: Second: It does not appear ap-pear to have been executed by ail tho parties to the instrument, etc. Third: It is irrelevant and in-cojipeteot in-cojipeteot for evidence or for any purpose. Fourth: Thoro was not sufficient proof of tho execution of any suoh instrument and it was not soaled or acknowledged, Tho court overruled tho objection and admitted the paper. The defendant excepted. Judge Garber read a copy of the consolidation and had tamo filed. Tho witness said after the papers were exeoutod, ninety or a hundred days' work was dooo on the o aim under the consolidation. Ho lelf the latter part of July lb61. Work then going on on the claim. Alfred T. Eastland, was called and said ho was olerk ior iho Raymond & Ely mining oompauy in August, 1871, and afecrward learned from Lightner that hi 3 name had been used in the location of tho Hermes. Ho afterwards, after-wards, at the the request of Lightner, deeded it, but doesn't know to whom. He did not receive any compensation. Louis Tardus, sworn, said he was olerk for tho Raymond & Ely mining company in August, 1S71, and heard his name was on the location of the Hermes, but did not koow it before called upon to sign the transfer. iNo compensation was given him. The defendant moved to strike out the testimony of Eastland and Tardos, oo the ground that it was irrelevant and iucutnpetcnt, and that the same does not show tide in the plaintiff. The defendant admitted plaintiff was in possession of the ground in despute, cto. Tho court overruled tho objection, the defendant excepting. Tardoa said he got an order for five hundred shares of Hermes stock lately. Had not understood he was to have stock at the time he signed tho deeds. Hjory Rives, sworo, said he was never a recoenized attorney of the Raymond & Ely miniDg company. Question Were you locator in the Hermes location ? Objected to by defendant, and replied re-plied toby O arbor who aliudcd to the allegation of complaint against Perley and Lightner. Afternoon session. Hardy for the plaintiff argued io Gupport of the introduction of the evidence objected to by the defendant and took the position that defendant was not in a jo.-ition to dUpute iho tide of plaintiff; cued a number of authorities and said it must bo. in some place in the domain do-main of jurisprudence, that there was powtr of court and remedy to prevent an aceat from disposing of the property proper-ty of his principal. A corporation that holds in is hands the property ot a thousand ' .uividuals must so set that the world "lay look them in the , liioe. Under the las of cohere??, 1 teclion two, acs cf IS72, the plaintiff wai cntitL'd to tho entire claim j unless the dfendaLts set up an adverse ad-verse title "by their fraudulent ao:s," eta Hardy spoke over two hours and was followed by judgo Like. At 5:C0 p.m. tho court adjeurcd. 'iLe Pi:eho Daily Record appears to morrow enlarged to the tamo size aa tho Sacramento Union. The proprietors pro-prietors announce that their presses will soon be run by steam. |