Sonoma Democrat, Volume XX, Number 30, 19 May 1877 — GEYSER QVIVK.SiI.VER MIXES. [ARTICLE]

GEYSER QVIVK.SiI.VER MIXES.

Our readers will remember the case of A. Stone vs. the Geyser Quicksilver Mining Company which took place in February, 1875. The suit at the time of trial here attracted great attention. It was decided in favor of the defendants. In January, 1876, a bill of exceptions on motion for a new trial was presented to Judge Wallace in Chambers at the city of San Francisco. The motion was argued three months afterward. At the June terra in Santa Rosa Judge Wallace denied the motion. An appeal was taken from the order denying motion fora new trial, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on Tuesday last, David S. Terry, John Nugent and Calhoun Benbara appearing for the appellants, and John Garber for the respondents. The grounds urged for a new trial are that the evidence which went to thejury clearly showed that plaintiff bad acquired title, which had not been forfeited, to the premises in controversy; that the title neither by mining rules or regulations bad been rendered void nor abandoned intentionally ; that all the facts showed for the defendants were that they audaciously and illegally intruded npon plaintiff and openly endeavored to improve him out of his estate by improvements deliberately made for that purpose, after due notice of bis rights. The defendant set up no pretension to title other than by locations made in the fall of 1871, and later, Therefore it was claimed that the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant was against the law and evidence, under these points. The admission of certain testimony and the allowing of certain instructions proposed by defendants logo to the jury, are also grounds for a new trial. The respondent’s counsel argued a general denial, and reviewed the testimony of the case to show that the verdict was a proper one.