| Show I I THIC i x i MIH 1 I 1Ikm TwoTh7rds Onblp Before I I irli I I I Supin Connt 1 1 I I Arguments In the case of James 11 Mean as administrator of Ihn estate i 11 of William P Aulls deceased et nl I plaintiffs and appellants va Joseph I Thornton t et al l defendants and respondents 3 rs ng dl1l v spondents were made before the State 11 I Supreme court this morn n or uomoy I tI 1 FT r il Tvvomey representing the appellants and11 men 11 < Smith tile respondents It 4 Theerecord In the no shows that Bacon and others I brought action III fj I agalnBI the defendants 10 determine I nn adverse mining claim No damage I I were asked for Th legation of the i I I complaint set forth that the doceased Ii William r Ann WON the owner and entitled to tvvothlrd Interest In 1 the I I I X L lodi or mine nth Went minI min-I Ing dstrlct thatThornton had tried I to defraud the estate out of It Plain tffs asked that the defendants bo each l I I required to se forh he nature of their I claims and that the rouit decree and I 1ft I determine their validity J I Judge Norrell Iwfnrt whom the muse lO J 1l 1 I we tried gave Judgment In I favor of I 1 the defendant Thornton as against all I I the plalntlfs An appeal WM take In I on the grounds the court denyln the plantlfts motion for a new trial 1 and numerous errors which are cited Ij I I |