Arizona citizen., 1874-01-31

ton. There is no element of the present case which brings it within the statute of frauds. It is not shown nor does it appear how the statute of frauds can apply to any person or thing in the present case. The third point is Overruled as inapplicable to the case. -
 The fourth point is tone person cannot locate mining claim for another except in connection with himself, without au- thority in writing from the person for whom he IOcates." Since the United States first permanently occupied Ca1ifOr- mia in July, lS46, there has arisen a system of mining law on our Pacific Slope whose peculiar principles, obligations, and rela- lions, courts of justice cannot disreg 4E<1 without the most fragrant injustice. L all other codes which have attempt9 permanent existence, this code has b the offspring of stern necessity. This 4f tenn, too, has reared a class Of men ped jar in their characters and relations.
 of these is the prOSpectOr who with markable daring and sagacity alOne with small attendance, penetrates eve where in search of the precious meta Great as are his natural resources, he would be pOwerless but for the necessary aid furnished him by others, more or less remote, who are to share with him in the results Of his explorations. The compacts by which these things are done in many, perhaps in most instances, are found With out any written assurance by men who know and trust each others unwritten faith. But for these simple, tOrmless methods, our mineral wealth would have been far less developed than it is. Destroy these methods and our mineral system must lose much of it's progressive power. The present case belongs to this system and it cannot be determined without more or less reference to its rules and obllga- tiOnS. At the time of the location of the claim in controversy, it was not included in any mining district of it's own, nor was it subject to the law of any other. The common law of miners above referred to, was recognized by those concerned in the claim; but beyond that. they were bound by no law except the act of Congress of July 26, 1866 All these laws appear to have been complied with by defendants. This suit however stopped them before their patent could be secured. The testl- mOny shows that French had Linn's au- thority to locate this claim for him and that Linn afterwards ratified his acts by taking and holding the property. It ena- bled Linn to hold the property agalnst every claimant but the United States. Even if Linn had no right, Mary E. sawyer could not by any legal right enter on his property and carry off his notices. This point is therefore Overruled.
 The sixth point is: "That the location of a mining claim is not valid unless made In accordance with the laws of the
 United States, the laws of the Territory, and the rules and customs of the mining district where the claim IS situated" Inls mine was not in an organized mining dls-
 trict. In the location as far as it progress
 cd before this suit suspended it, all was
 done, from what appears, in accordance
 with the laws of the United States, the
 laws of this Territory and the local cus-
 toms so far as they were known. The no-
 ticeS put on the property on behalf or Linn were sufficient to inform the whole con-
 munity who claimed the location in con-
 trOverSy Both Mary K. Sawyer and the
 plaintifiS, as the testimony shoWS, were
 fully informed of Linn's claim. During
 the brief period of the plaintiffs occupan-
 cy, it appears they adopted Linn's monu-
 mCnts, and Linn's marks and measure
 mentS, thereby acknowledging their sutfi-
 ciency. The occupancy on behalf Of Linn
 and by Linn himself appears to have been
 all that the law required in an unsettled
 and troubled Indian country. This point
 is therefore Oveuuled.
 The seventh and last of the appellants points is: "One having already located under the laws of the United States, ap-
 proved July 26, 1866, the amount of min ing ground allowed to be located by such laws, another location made by him III the name of another person with the ln- tent to have the said claim after location inUre to his benefit, is void as made ln fraud and evasion of the said law Of the United States" There is no evidence that the claim in contest in this case was ln- tended to inure to the benefit of anyone
 but Linn in whose favor it was located Dy
 French This point has been disposed of
 as far as the court has power to do so, un-
 der a former one.
 The following is the judgment in the
 case: "The judge of the district court of the third judicial district was right in set ting aside the verdict in this case, and or dering a new trial and his order must
 therefore be affirmed"