Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1876-11-29

1917. by the IocatorS OF said claim
Yes.
2. Did the G ~.locators OF plaintiff in
the Shark mining claim place a stake
at the N. w. end Of the Shark mining
claim about the 10Th day Of Sc ptem Der,
1872, to mark the northwest end of
said mining claim?
No.
3. Was a stake set by the co-loca-
tors Of plaintiff during the year 1872 at
the southeast end OF the Shark mining
claim to mark the southeast end OF
said claim ?
No.
4. Did the plaintiff in April, 1874, set
stakes at each corner of the Shark
mining claim, as designated on plain
titf's map, to mark the boundaries of
said claim?
Yes.
5. Could such stakes be distinctly
seen and the boundaries OF the claim
traced therefrom 7
Yes.
6. Did the plaintiff and his co-own
ers and lOcators in the Shark mining
claim do work OF the value Of 500 on
day of September, 1872, and the 9th
u@y W SVplChAOoAS Aoto'
Yes.
Z. Did the plaintiff and his co-own-
ers and locators in the Shark mining
claim do work of the value Of 500 on
said mining claim between the 9th day
Of September, 1878, and the 9th day Of
September, 1874?
Yes.
8. Did plaintiff and his coo wners
and co-locators in the Shark mining
claim Go work Of the value Of 800
upon said claim between the 9th day
of September, 1874, and the 9th day Of
September, 1875?
Yes.
8. Had plaintiff and his co-owners
and co.1ocatnrs in the Shark mining
claim done work to the value oil $4,000
up to the 9th day of September, 1875,
upon said mining claim !?
No.
10. Did the Paymaster notice. as
first posted on the claim and recorded in
little book Of records, contain the same
names as locators as the notice under
which they now claim /?
No.
IL. Was the notice OF Payinaster
as originally recorded in the little
book. correctly transcribed in the
present records?
No.
II. Did the locator, of the Paymas-
ter mine. O r any one of the locators,
post a new notice on the mine in tho
latter part Of October, 1872?
Yes.
13. Did such notice change the d.
rection Of location from easterly and
westerly to northerly and southerly :?
Yes.
IA. Was such notice ever recorded
in the records of that mining district ?
No.
Is. Is the notice of Paymaster mine,
as it now appears on the records, the
am IS originally posted and re
corded ?
No.
l6. Did the or locators O the
Paymaster mine eve put up stakes at
each corner of the claim before the
survey for a patent was made
No.
II. Were any stakes ever put by
the Of the Paymaster mine
prior to the survey for a patent other
than at northwest and southeast end OF
claim :?
No.
lCs "cIO any IIltDl1lS ldWo PhnSCA
| by the miners OF Ward district OH the
18th day of May, 1872?
Not on the 18th, but on the LIST OF
Nav, 1872.
10. Were such laws, if any, recog-
nized by all miners of that district az
| the mining laws OF that district until
| repealed October LIST, 1872?
Yes.
20. Were the claims in controversy
located under those mining laws?
Yes.
81. Have there been any alterations
OF record of the Paymaster mine !?
Yos.
%. Have there been any of
such record of notice, or in such re-
cord :?
Yes.
%. In what respect has the record
| of such notice been altered, erased or
interlined?
Erased and written over.
"a. Did John Henry, one Of the To-
Gators, put up a notice on the claim in
October. 1872, claiming in q different
direction from the notice Heretofore
posted and there being on the claim ?
Yes.
Is. Was the Paymaster mine orig
inally located in IN easterly and west
erly direction?
Yes.
26. Were the words "easterly and
westerly - in the notice first recorded
in the present book OF records!
Yes. !,
27. Were those words erased and
other words substituted?
Yes.
%. What words were substituted,
If any?
Northerly and southerly.
90. State the change and alterations.
also the words erased.
Easterly and westerly erased and
northerly and %southerly substituted.
80. How many changes OF location
of Paymaster mine have been made?
One. ~.
81. Did the Shark niue as origin
ally located conflict or interfere with