The Shasta courier., 1864-09-24

a
receive subscriptions and advertisements, and
| receipt for the same.
oFFICE-I714 Washington street, opposite Ma
| Suires Opera House.
The johnson Gold, silver and Copper
| Mining Company vs.. The Original Will
| liams & kelIenger Gold, silver and
| Copper Mining Company.
The pleadings and proofs in this case show
| what follows; This action is brought to
quiet the title to certain piece or parcel Of
, ssy1ftz lelfs described and claimed in the
piaiItif7s complaint. The complaint mar
rates and recites various kinds of matter of
evidence to, show that the plaintiffs are en-
titled to have the six hundred feet of the ledge
claimed therein decreed to them, and that
they are in possession of the same, and that
the defendants claim title thereof, and are
| disturbing their right of possession by sell.
| ing mining stocks founded on the mining
claim in controversy. The defendants in
their answer deny the material allegations
OF the complaint, and put in issue and claim
| as their property four hundred and forty -four
feet of the part and parcel of the ledge des-
cribed and claimed by the plaintiffs. The
question to be determined in this case then
is, Is the plaintiff entitled to the four hun
dred and forty-four feet of the ledge in con-
troversy as against those defendants or eth
er of them?
The plaintiff has definitely described his
claim by metes, distances and courses and des.
lgnates for his southern boundary certain
pine tree named in the evidence, and desig-
mated on the map given in evidence, as the
Johnston pine tree, pointed out by him as
his southern boundary &C., and claims that
his six hundred feet of the ledge commences
at that pine tree and thence extends upon the
ledge in northerly course six hundred feet
The defendants dispute this initial boundary
point, and contend that the plaintiffs souther-
ly initial boundary point is on the ledge four
hundred and forty four feet distant from said
tree in northerly direction, which four hun
dred and forty four feet of the ledge is the
claim in controversy. The plaintiff claims
the possession and the right to the possession
of this part of the ledge, under deed execu-
ted by McKean, Gallagher, Williams and
kellenger on the 9th day of March, 1863, to
.. II. Johnson, in which the property convey
ed is described as those certain quartz min
ing claims taken up and recorded in the name
OF George j. McKeon and f. Gallagher. and
joining on to the original discovery claims
known as the Williams and Killincer claim
or ground, the said mining claims embracing
three hundred feet each, being a total of six
hundred feet" lie original discovery
claims referred to in the above description
are first mining claims of three hundred feet
each situate on the same ledge next to and
southerly from the claim in controversy. On
the date Of this deed the claims in controver
sy were owned by Mexican, Gallagher. Will.
iams and kellenger. as tenants in common,
who, together with Silverthorn, are defend
ants in his action. Il e ground or claims
sold to johnson by Mexican, Gallagher, Will
liams aud kellenger were intended to be two
mining claims of three hundred feet each.
originally taken up and located on the ledge
as the cl;lims of Mexican and Gallagher, to.
gether with a claim of the same extent taken
up tor Norton Stone; these three claims of
nine hundred feet being located adjoining to
the said original discovery claims. which To-
cation was made on o. about the 2lst dav of
February, 1868. SThe mining ground sold to
johnson was the claims of Mckaen and Gal
IA .her-the description in the deed designates
them as such, but does not describe them by
metes or boundaries, therefore the six hun
dred feet of the ledge so sold requires
practical location. In July, 1862, before any
mining rules and regulations had been es.
tablished in the vicinity of this ledge. the
original discovery claims, consisting of FIVE
claims of three hundred feet each, making
an extent of fifteen hundred feet on the ledge.
were located by Williams, killinger, Silver
thorn, and one Worley. one claim being To-
Gated by the right of discovery These orig
inal claims have been occupied and worked
for mining purposes ever since their location,
thnir ,ol
was marked by a stake and notice on or about
the date of their location, and the northerly
limit at distance fifteen hundred feet from
the southerly boundary was also designated
by marking certain pine tree standing on
the northerly boundary of the claims. On
the sixth day Of March. 1868, meeting of
miners was held, at which set of written
mining laws was adopted for the district in
which the ledge and claims are situated and
the original discovery claims, now known as
the Original Williams, killinger and Com
pany's claims were respected, and record of
them. which had Ieen made in the Office of
the Recorder of the county of Shasta, was rat
flied as the proper record of these claims:
and also, at the same time. among other
claims that had been located and recorded
in said Recorders office, the three claims of
4uCiACdu btOuc were TtCpG
ed and their records ratified. These claims
of Mexican, Gallagher and Stone, and all
other claims were, recognized and confirmed
as subordinate to the said original discovery
claims. At the time of his said purchase
Johnson knew the southerlv initial bounda-
~ and the extent and direction of the origin
al discovery claims that these claims ex-
tended on said ledge fifteen hundred feet in
northerly direction from said boundaries.
And the conclusion is, that johnson intended
that the commencement or southerly boun-
dary of the two claims he bought should no
at some point on the ledge in a northerlv di.
reetion fifteen hundred feet from the soutber.
ly initial boundary of the said original dis.
covery claims.
The Court finds that the said johnson n;no
tree, which the plaintiff claims as the sentb.
erly bound of the mining ground in contro-
versy, is only ten hundred and sixty five foot
from the southerly boundary noint of H.
original discovery claims, and that tbs NJ
kean and Gallagher claims, which Jobnson
purchased. do not commence at the .Jobnson
pine tree thereto designated in the comnla;nt
and that the claims SO purchased bv O r.
johnson, which are described in bis aaad
have their southerly boundary at some no;n,
on the ledge in question four bundred pm, I'M
forty fur feet more or less distant in a no-.b.