Boise news. (Bannock City, I.T. [Idaho City, Idaho]) 1863-1864, 1864-05-28


INJUNcTIoN SUIT.-Snatfer & Nugent Us.
Thos. Lynch, ct, al-This is an action brought
in the District Court to restrain the Defend
ants from mining a small piece of ground in
Idaho citv.sand for damages,-and involves
questions in which a very large. number Of
people are interested, which accounts for the
space deyoted1o it this week. The plaintiffs
applied to his HONOR. S. Gray, Probate
Judge, at Cham5ers,-for an injunction to
prevent the Defendants from mining upon
said. lot and under. PLAINTIFF house, on the
ground that they were the owners and in
possession of the land, and that said mining
would render it. valueless, and the damage
would be irreparable. Defendants deny the
ownership of Plaintiffs, and aver that it is. on
mineral land Of the U. s., and was abandon
ed by plaintiffs on the first Of June, 1864, by
Noncompliance with the mining laws; that
on said day Defendants relocated the ground
for mining purposes. They also deny the
right of those from whom Plaintiffs claim
ownership, to lay off said ground into lots and
streets also, that one of-the Plaintiffs re-
duested them to nine out the ground. The
case was heard on the Goth Of May, on the
motion for Injunction The facts.elieited were
substantially as. follows In Nov, 1882 J.
Marion NJ core, II Grow and others To-
Gated five mining claims Of 200 feet each, on
Bann0ck Bar, then mineral land OF The U u.s.,
~ ~ III q . L.
parties laid off, portion Of their ground into
lots and streets, making a plat of the same,
(now part Ct Idaho city, including the. lot
in question. The original looators sold to,lhe
Defendants partoF the ground, but no por-
ton that had been, laid off into lots and
streets,-Mr. Moore purchasing from his
partners the lot in question, INN arch, 1868 Il
that Moore built house thereon, which he
sold with the ground to lhe Plaintiffs. The
mining laws provided that no claim shall be
forfeited from the first of Dec to the first Of
June. and that 10 days thereafter-it not
wOFked-they would be forfeited Defend.
ants aver that on the first Of.June, 1868, they
put up notices extending their claims to the
HILL so as to embrace the building ground
claimed by Plaintiffs, and recorded the same
on the 9th. The Judge said he had no pow
er to determine the matter in litigation; that
the Defendants were doing, or threatening
to do acts that, should the Plaintiffs obtain
judgment in the District Court, would render
the judgment Intellectual as the damage
would be irreparable, it was his duty to keep
the property in its present state until the
rights of the parties were determined-re.
Qdiring such bond of Plaintiffs as will pro.
tect the Defendants against any damage that
may be awarded them by reason Of such re
Straints. He considered that Plaintiffs had
made out a prima facia case of ownership,
and as to the validity of the relocation by
Defendants, they were matters to be deter
mined upon the trial upon the merits Of the |
case. The only title to Government land, is
that of posseSsion-'' first in time, first in
right" If Plaintiffs were in possession at
the time of the RELOCATION on the first of
June, and the relocation was valid, it was
yet subject to the vested rights OF Plaintiffs,
if such rights are in harmony with the obv- |
Gus policy of the Government--ciling the
case of Fitzgerald vs.. Triton, 9Th Cal. Re-
dorts, page 1888; also, Gillen vs.. Hutchinson,
10th CAL, J.. 155. The point raised, that
Moore & Co. sold ground for building pur-
poses, reserying the right to mine, would not
avail, unless that right had been assigned to
Defendants. 4 plaintiffs were under no obli-
cation to mine out the ground, If they chose
to use it for other purposes. The request Of
one of the Plaintiffs, thaf7D defendants mine
put the ground, may have a bearing ia Che
rial Of the case, but does not affect this mo-
ton The Injunction, lsigranteds 10 s5a.ai /
w 3lE y" 81 3tt-f !
: MEssRs, iEps.44''I H. attention, has been