Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1863-10-24

of the quartz ledge known as the Yellow
Jacket ledge. Therefore, if the jury be-
ieve, from the evidence, that on said -
day of June, 1852, plaintiff. or its prede-
cessors, were working upon, and claim
ing, and thereby possessing, (such acts
constituting possession the ledge in con-
troversy, they must find verdict for the
plaintiff, or, if the jury believe, from the
evidence, that the ledge in controversy
was, in june 1862, or in January, 1868,
known as the Yellow Jacket ledge, they
must find for the plaintiff, and in deter
mining what ledge was known as the yell
low Jacket ledge, the locality of the plain
tifFs works with reference to the ledge is
an important subject for the jury to con-
slider. E.,... .... ~. .
Fourth-If the jury believe, from the
evidence, that at the time of the location
of Union Company's claim, the locaters
thereof had the location of the Yellow
Jacket claim pointed out to themby ]. w.
Phillips, representing the Yellow Jacket
Company, and that said location so point
ed out covered the ledge in dispute, and
then and there agreed with said Phillips,
to locate ledge supposed to lie to the
east of said Yellow Jacket location SO
pointed out, and not to interfere with said
Yellow Jacket location, then the defend
ant will not DO permitted to say that the
Yellow Jacket location was not as pointed
out to them, and they must find for the
plaintiff. =.
Fifth-If the jury believe, from the evil
dence, that when the Yellow Jacket claim
was located there were no mining laws or
customs prevailing in the vicinity of said
claim. That the locaters of said Yellow
| Jacket claim discovered the ledge in con-
troversy, staked and measured the same
off, placed notices, and did work thereon
prior to defendants claim thereto, then
the Yellow Jacket Company, succeeding
to the rights of said locaters. have proven
possession of said ledge prior to that of
defendants, and the jury must find for the
plaintiff.
Sixth-The jury are instructed that the
fact (if so it beg that the recorded notice
of the Yellow Jacket Company, recorded
in June, 1856, does not exactly CORE
spond with the notice placed on the ground
in May, 1859, is unimportant for them to
consider.
The following instructions were asked
by the defendant and given by the Judge
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN FOR THE DEFENDANT.
->lst. The plaintiff must recover upon
the strength of their own title, and not
upon the weakness of the defendants.
I'd. If the jury believe, from the evil
dence, that in the vicinity of the ledge in
controversy other lodges exist, either of
which might be embraced or covered by
the plaintiffs location, then the plaintiff is
only entitled to one of said lodges, and
must be confined to that one in the most
immediate proximity to their stakes and
notices.
3D.. Under single location of a quartz
ledge only one can be held or possessed,
and the locality of the ledge SO to be held
and claimed under the notice must be de-
fined and marked out with reasonable
certainty, and party placing his stakes
and notices, and doing his work in the
immediate vicinity to ledge, will be
held and considered as having located
the ledge, and will be confined to it, and
any other ledge in the vicinity is open
and free to appropriation by Others.
4th. If the jury believe from the evil
dence that the Yellow Jacket stakes and
notices were placed upon the upper crop
pings, and that the work of said Com
pany was done upon the ledge indicated
by those groupings, and also believe that
there is ledge between those groupings
and the ledge in dispute, then the Yellow
Jacket have no right to skip over the in
&. tervcning ledge and claim the ledge in
controversy in this action.
If the jury find that at the time Of the
location of the Uniou ledge, Mr.. Phillips
then being an owner in, member and
chief executive officer of, the Yellow
Jacket Company, by his words or acts,
or both, induced such location to be
made and that afterwards the locators
and their grantees proceeded to exercise
acts of ownership of said ledge, and to
expend large sums of money and to labor
thereupon for series of years, the men,
bers of the Yellow Jacket Company hav-
ing full knowledge thereof and not object
ing, then the plaintiff is eStopped from de-
nying defendants title thereto, and YER
dict must be found for defendant.
The following instruction was asked by
the defendant, and refused by the Judge
on the ground that the pleadings do not
leave the question to depend entirely on
the original location. If the Yellow Jack
ct Company have done their work upon
the ledge in dispute, that would not en-
title them to hold it, unless they located
it according to mining usages and GUS
toms. '....
The defendant excepted to the Judges
refusal to grant this instruction. The
jury were out between four and five hours,
L 4 1 4. IL u.