Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1873-05-31

Il surface claim, does not show tb,t
they abandoned their ledge location !.
that no authorities have been cited f.,
SHOW thai Il covenant of this Kind has
ever been enforced in a court of enui.
W that IN an action for ejectment Nv
the coVenanter, no reference can be-
Il to the covenant, it such a thing
We're III force, that no estoppel can is.
sue the deed; but if any, it must
be an estoppel i'll pay that
III injunction "A he had on.v from
lawful title, and not from equitable
claim that proceedings in relation
to this point we're moi In any measure
referred To in plaintiffs complaint,
and cannot prorelv come up here.
The Court adjourned at II Quarter to
five, to meet at seven O'Clock =. VI.
EVENING SESSION.
Court assembled at ! o'clock T. VI
Judge Mckennev announced that Inc
had sustained the objection ma lie by
defendants to the introduction of the
deed that he would give his reas
therefor at some future time.
Mr.. HlillhOu>e asked the Court if
the deed was ruled ont because the
matter was not pleaded.
The Judge said he had not fully
S"t'Hii'd iii'iStll YET on tnat point,
but that he would rule it out ANYWAY
upon The ground that it is obnoxious
TO the statutes of frauds.
Plaintiffs moved to amend their
complaint so as TO include the matter
ruled out.
Defendants objected, and the obiec-
ton was sustained.
Plaintiffs next offered in evidence
u certified copy of the notice OF | ,ca-
ton of the Champion mine. to show
that the Richmond Company had two
locations, when. il it were ledge. they
would lie entitled to but one. II was
objected to " defendants that tie
notice he admitted, for the reason that
they can show that they had tenants
in common sufficient to hold all Ihev
had claimed, and that the evidence
would be, therefore, superlluous.
Objection sustained. and ruling ac-
ceuted t. 10y plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs continued the evidence in
rebuttal by Introducing Thomas
Macninson. \ question about what
conversation took llace when the
notice was put up on the Tip-Top
location. gave rise to II very spirited
discussion as To the intent of the lOca-
tiOnsofthe Richmond mine-whether
they located Il square or Il ledge
ella m, plaintiffs alleging that the
former was the original location, but
that the notice had been modified so
aS to meet the requirements OF a ledge
location when they thought they had
Il ledge. Defendants claim tha.,
through the whole line Of transfers
OF their mine, non OF the owners
ever thought OF holding under the
Sn1Ilra lhf1t1hh law nntlfhat nNjInnrn
to show that ii was 50 held or located
is indefinite and entirely parole.
Judge Mckenney, in order to dis
pense with any further discussion.
stated that defend tntS had produced
Il notice Of location which embraced
both the square and the ledge claim.
and that, as they had begun their
case and were conducting ii under the
tenure of n ledge claim, he would
rule ont evidence relating to a square,
as it WOul | only be an unnecessary
cOnSumntiOn Oftime.
Mr.. MchinSOn vas not allowed to
answer more than one question. OBJ
lection followed election, until the
Court ruled that any evidence rclat-
ing to the lateral boundaries OF the
Richmond mine would not he adnis-
Sible, as it would only tend to contra
dict the notices OF location, when ~
already been admitted.
Mr.. keves was the next witness
called, but, like his predecessor Wit
ness, was permitted to say bat little.
Plaintiffs instructed their reporter to
enter an objection to every question
put by the opposite attorneys, without
the formality of their rising to state 1t
to TIE Court.
AT ten minutes past 10 O'Clock, MI.
IIillhouse asked for an adjournment,
on account of their not being able To-
continue the further examination OF
Mr.. kcVcS without inst consulting
together, and that about one hour TINS
morning would close the testimony
III rebuttal. His request was granted.
BY an agreement between attorneys
and the Court, the case Is to be sub
mitted to the jury this evening. judge
Nckennev told the counsel .Nesttr-
day. after they had entered into the
agreement, that ii the proceedings
were unnecessarily protracted' anu
the arguments were not got through
with in time to submit the case, he
would submit it any way.
Court will meet this morning al the
usual hour.