OCR Text |
Show third district court. Our report begins with a brief summary sum-mary of the evidence of Messrs. Bates and Sewell, which failed to be furnished us yesterday morning, and has not appeared ap-peared in type anywhere until now. Captain T. H. Bates was sworn and examined and was subjected to a sharp cross-examination by Mr. Carter, who endeavored to have the captain confers himscif an expert, but witness would simply admit that he was a civil engineer, whose experience in mines and mining was limited lim-ited to the last two years. He had examined the Emma mine on two different occasions, and he testified testi-fied that the ore and ground in dispute had a perfect connection with the ore in the original workings of the Emma; and that the foot wall of the Emma was well defined, though the vein was irregular in its width, the foot wall lying ly-ing in waves, so that the vein varied from a few inches to over twenty feet in its breadth. Mr. HeDry Sewell testified that he received bis mining education at Freiburg, Frei-burg, in Germany, having graduated at that famous school of mines in 1850; that he had traveled through nearly all the mining countries of Europe", and examined most of the European mines; that be bad been engaged in mining operations in South America for over eight years; and that for the last two years he had been employed in the examination of mines in Nevada and Utah. He Btatcd that veins were of three kinds strata veins, which lie between and follow the course of tho strata of the surrounding country rock ; fissure viens, which cut the formation of the surrounding rock; contact veins which lie between difierent formations of rock. He pronounced pro-nounced the Emma vein to be a strata vein, surrounded by limestone and running with the strata of the limestone lime-stone on Emma Hill, which has a general direction from north-east to south west. Some sharp passages occurred between the witness and Mr. Smith, of couusel for the defendant, in which it was generally held the legal gentleman came oft second best. Yesterday morning Judge Morgan responded to the order of tho Court of the 5th iost., citing him to show cause why ho Bhould not be disbarred for alleged contempt of court Judge Morgan appeared by his counsel, Judge Cooper, who argued eloquently and feelingly in behalf of bis friend and fellow counsellor, but the Court ordered that unless Judge Morgan appeared ap-peared in person to-morrow morning, at the opening of oourt, and tendered an apology in open court, he would be stricken from the roll of attorneys of the Third District Court of Utah. The following orders were then made by tho court : "It is ordered that Tilr. Haydon, Mr. Marshall and Mr, Robertson do inquire and report whether Charles G. Loeber, an attorney and counsellor of this oourt, ia guilty of habitual or gross villification of this court, or of tho judge thereof. Let the report be verified. veri-fied. Jas. B. McKean, Judge, &c." "It is ordered that Mr. DeWolf, Mr. Hempstead and Mr. Whitney, do inquire and report whether A. Huggan, an attorney and counsellor of this court, (whoso ohristian namo is no-known no-known to the court,) is bringing tbo honorable profession of tho law into disrepute by the praat.ee of habitual drunkenness or other vices. Let the report be verified. Jas. B. McKean, Judge, &o." These little matters having been disposed dis-posed of, the defendant in the Emma case moved for a non-suit, as follows: And now como the defendants and movo this honorable oourt for a nonsuit, non-suit, Upon the following grounds and for the following reasons that is to say ; 1st. For that tho plaintiff has not shown that it holds or has tho title to tho premises in dispute. 2d. For that tho plaintiff has not shown that it was at the time of the supposed trespasses alleged in its complaint to havo been committed, in tho possession of the premises in disputo. 3d. For that the plaintiff has not shown that at the time of said supposed trespasses, it was entitled to the premises premi-ses in dispute. 4th. In that tho plaintiff has not shown that it is a corporation or that it was a corporation at the time of said supposed trespasses, at tho timo of the commencement of this action, or at any timo up to tho present. 5th. In that plaintiff has not shown the corporate character of tho Emma silvor miniDg company of Now York from which it claims to havo derived title, to tho promises in dispute. 6th. b'or that the plaintiff has shown that it is a foreign, alien corporation, (if a corporation at all,) and has thus shown itself incapable of holding mine ral ground within the United States of 1 America, except by purchase, and has not shown any purchase by it of tho premises in disputo. 7th. For that tho plaintiff claims to have and hold the premises in dispute by virtue of and under a patent granted grant-ed by the government of tho United States, but admits that tho said premises prem-ises aro outside the linos and expressed limits of tho ground oonvoyod by said patent. 8th. For that tho plaintiff has failed to show proof that the premises and mining ground of ore in disputo is conncotod with or is part of tho body ort embraced within tho lines of the government patent introduced by it. 9th. In that tho plaiutiff has failed to show any right to any oro, whether in vein, lode, deposit, mass, or other aggregation except such as might be found within tho linos and boundaries set forth in said patent. The time of the oourt was occupied during tho balance of yesterday, in listening to arguments on the above motion. Court adjourned till this morning at tho usual hour. |