Arizona citizen., 1874-01-31

county recorder Of 1aNdpai county; anu | on the 2d of FebTuary, 1871, next following ! this record, a description with the certifi- 1 cafe of record upon it, was placed on the l monument with the original notice.
 The transcript of the record of this case shows that at the time of the location, It
 was not included within any organized mining district, and that the location and record Of it were made in accordance with the custom and practice prevailing Tn that
 vicinity, among miners at the tune; IL also
 shows that afterwards, on the 4Jh ot Feo-
 ruary, 1871, mining district was organ
 ized there, a system of rules adopted, ana
 q recorder elected or appointed; It shows
 that it was not any time the custom or
 that district tO record with the district
 mining recorder locations made and re-
 corded with the county recorder previous
 to the election or appointment Of the nm
 ing recorder. The transcript also shows
 that work was done on the claim on be-
 half of Linn from about the 10th of Feb
 ruary, 1871, till the plaintiffs entry and
 custer, which was on the 20th OfJune, 1871,
 and that as early as February 2, of thai
 year, Thomas Maxwell was at work there
 for Linn. The transcript further shows
 that On the llth of February, lS1i, Mary r..
 Sawyer entered upon the claim in contest,
 saw where some work had been done, re-
 moved from the monument Linn's notices
 and substituted one of her own; that She
 worked on the claim one or two days, dO-
 ing as much work as a woman could do,
 which one of plaintiffs witnesses thought
 was joke; and on the 18th of June, the
 same year, conveyed all her interest to
 the plaintiffs in this case; also that before
 the plaintiffs purchased the claim of Mary
 F.. Sawyer, they had examined Llnn'S de-
 scriptiOn of it among the records of the
 county, and had visited and examined the
 claim itself where they saw that consider
 able work had been done upon It, which
 they understood had been done by those representing the Linn claim; that aitef-
 wards, about the 20th June, 1871, the plain
 tiffS put two men to work on the claim; that the day after. Stewart and Maxwell
 came upon the claim, and stewart, claim ing to be agent or partner of Linn, forbade
 the plaintiffs men from working any longer on this claim; and that on June 29, 1871, Linn came upon the ground, eVlcted the plaintiffs and has retained possession ever since; also that in January and Feb ruary, 1871, W. A. Linn, the defendant, re- sided in Nevada and that he did not re- turn to Arizona till the month of June of the same year, just previously to his all ieged eviction of the plaintiffs; also that at the organization of the Tiger Mining District, the rules and regulations TequlI- cd that all claims located therein should be recorded with the district recorder with in thirty days after the location, and five days work be done on the same Wlthln six months, commencing within thirty days after the location.
 No regular assignment of errors appears in the case, and the points of law present. ed for the disaCirmance of the. order 2p-. pealed from, appear only on the brief of appellants counsel, as follows:
 l. The verdict of the jury was in ac- | cOrdance with the law and the evidence, and the court erred in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial. It is the l province of the jury to weigh the evidence and the court will not disturb the verdict when the evidence is not conflicting. 7 l The court erred iii allowing lhnn 10 Slve .,f tn | 3. A mining claim is an interest in land within the meaning of the statutes Of | frauds. 1. One person cannot locate d mining claim for another except in con ncctiOn with himself, without authority Tn writing from the person for whom he To- l cateS. ]. The location of mining claim 1 is not valid unless made in accordance | with the laws of the United states, the | laws of this Territory, and the rules ana ] customs of the mining district where the | same is situated. 6. One having already l located under the laws of the United states, | approved July, lS6j, the amount Of mining ground allowed 10 be located by such law, | another location made by him In the name of another person with the intent to have 1 the after location inure to his beneht, IS | void as made in fraud and evasion OT said | law of the United States. '. The court err | ed in charging the jury that the law con- | stitutes the diScOverer Of a m1ne tle agent | for whom he chances to act, and makes 1 his act their act regardless Of the fact whether they have any knowledge Of It or
 not. Such further reference will be made 1 to the facts In this case as may be found i necessary to illustrate the foregoing points, 1 in the progress of their discussion.
 The first point taken, viz: The verdict | of the jury was in accordance with the law | and the evidence and the court erred in setting aside the verdict and granting a
 new trial. It is the province of the jury | to weigh the evidence and the court will not disturb their verdict, when the testi- propositions presented is statement of l the affirmative branch of the issue ana
 can only be answered by an examination ! of the whole case; the second Of these 1 propositions is perhaps more frequently | repeated than almost any other and, when 1 taken in all it's generality, is fraught with | error It is true only of that portion Of | every case which interveneS between the
 submission by the court of all the evil dence to the jury, and the completion of l it's verdict. The evidence is subjected to l the cognition of parties, witnesses, counsel
 and court before it goes to the jury at all. Some power, beside the jury, must decide l the competency, relevancy and unexcep- 1 tionableness of every portion of the evil | dence before it can enter the Jury box | And on the rendition of the verdict, the | party litigant to whom it is adverse, has ! the indefeaSible right to have 1t compared 1 with the evidence, by the court, as the ! final test of it's validity. The statement | of the transcript of the present case shows an obvious prepOnderance of the teStl- mony against the verdict, and this point must therefore be and is Overruled.
 1 The second point is: That the court err | erred in allowing Linn to contradict his | r,1