Salt Lake Tribune | 1915-10-03 | Page 50 | Tooele Smelters Sued for $300,000

TOOELE SMELTERS SUED FOR $300100 Action for Damages Is Brought by A. J- Bruneau for 26 Farmers. DETAILS CONTRACTS Present Case Represents Only About One-third of Property Owners. A. J. Bruneau filed suit in the United States district court yesterday afternoon after-noon against the Utah Consolidated Mining company, the International Smelting & Refining company and the International Smelting company for 305,117.75. This amount represents twenty-six claims against the smelting company arising out of alleged damage done to Tooele county crops by the smelter smoke and fumes from tho Tooele smelter. All of the claimants have assigned their property to Mr. Bruneau, who m bringing the 'suit. The amount claimed include" the amount of the claim and attorneys ' fees as well. William Wraith ot the Uiternational Smelting companv said that he had not bees served with a summons and was therefore not in a position to comment on the filing of the suit. Tho complaint, which fills 108 typewritten type-written pages, is one of the longest eyer filed with the clerk of the United States court for this district. Much of it, however. Is a repotition. There are twenty-six causes of action set forth and the same allegations are contained in each. Would Buy Farms. Mr Bruneau begins by averring that during 190S the Utah Mining company planned to erect a sraeltor at the mouth of Pine canyon in Tooele county, and with this end in view endeavored to obtain from the farmers perpetual right to operate at this point. In order to be sure of this the smelting company secured an option of purchase on various va-rious tracts of land and farms in the vicinity of the smelter. The option was talien on an agreement to pay the farmer the full purchase price of his laud in the event that material damage was experienced as a result of the fumes from the smelter. At tho time these options of purchase pur-chase were secured 10 per cent of the purchase price agreed upon was paid each farmer. A contract was Bigned providing pro-viding for the purchase of each tract of land-at an agreed price in the event of damage from smelter smoke, the remainder re-mainder of the purchase price to be paid on the showing of material damage. dam-age. The complaint filed yesterday alleges that the crops of these farmers were materially damaged, that livestock was killed and that improvements were injured in-jured by reason of the operation of the smoltor'and the issuance of poisonous fumes from its stacks. The complaint alleges that demands on the smelter company wore made for the exercise of the option of purchase in accordance with the stipulations of the contract, and that these demands were refused. Contracts Were Signed. The complaint points out that these contracts betweeu the farmers and .the smelting company were originally signed by the Utah Consolidated Mining company, that at the time of the beginning be-ginning of the operation of the smelter in 1910 the contract were transferred to the International Smelting & Refining Refin-ing company and in 1914 to the International Interna-tional Smelting company. The amounts named in the twentr-six eontTacts specified in the complaints as enumerated in Ihe contracts aggregate a total of $305,336.75. In addition to this amount Mr. Bruneau asks for attorneys at-torneys ' fees covering each cause of action ac-tion and aggregating a total of $39,781, making a total amount of $305,177.75. Mr. Bruneau asks also for interest at 8 per cent from the time demands for these amounts were made on the company com-pany Inst summer. It is understood that the twenty-six contracts on which suit Is now brought represont about one-third of the contracts con-tracts of a similar nature with the melting company. The issue of the rott will therefore be watched with a treat deal of interest. Mr. Bruneau is represented In the suit by Attorneys Dickson, Ellis, TTlHs and Beholder and Judge W. H. King. Claims Enumerated. The names of tbe elaimants in behalf be-half of whom Mr. Bruneau is suing the smelter company, with the amounts claimed for each, the first amount given in each ease being the amount claimed on the oontract and the second amount jSbeattorneys ' fee sought, are given 1. Henry Harris and wife - 4O.WO.0O t 6,OT5 1. J. TV. Miller and wife S.S00.00 MO ? fVprga TV. Bryan and wife 2.10. CO &24 4. A. C. Vorwaller and wife 10.SOO.O 1,630 5. Thomas Te La Mare and wife.. 8,4WOO Wo S. Alexander Murray 8,800.00 1 246 I. Moses Bruneau... 4,97.0O I. Joseie and John T. Murray 8.2S4.0O 1,17 i. Joseph O. Timn and wife J.OTs.PO 810 1$. William VC. Keieon snd wife 18,140.00 1.S71 11. Thomas De La Mare and wife.. 1.00. 04 It! 11. Vred Bryan and wife. William H. Bryan and wife t:.tJX ,82 1. John B. Gordon and wife. John E. Gordon. Thomas Thom-as M. Gordon and wife ll.Si.7 1,774 14. Edwin M. Oi-me and wife 14.SS0.00 2,301 15. James Gowans and wife 1.OS0.00 is: IS. Thomas De La Marc and wife.. 1, n.lrt.no 16 17. Peter Clegg 26.125.00 ' 8.91S 18. Silas C. Orme and wife 720.00 108 T9. Pan .1. Parr' and wife 2.160.00 324 SO. D. R. Gillespie and wife 8.193.00 1.22S 21. Alice Spray Kirk. 10.177.00 1.525 ;;. Robert G. Shields snd wife 7. 254. no 1.0S7 23. Peter G. Shields and wife 2, 16rt.no 321 14. James G. Shields and wife 6,915.00 Ml 25. Thomas De t Mare and wife.. 1.416.00 211 26. Joseph Sims and wife 6.T77.00 1,015 J365.330.75 JG3.7S1 39.7S1 .00 MS5.117.7l.