The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1876-12-02
FoRrY-sEvEN SPECIAL ISSUES.


Company. at Ward. The case was a very
important one. and occupied the attention
OF the Court for a week. That our read
ers may know the prominent points in
the case, We publish the entire forty
seven special issues presented to the jury,
which were as follows
Q.-was the notice of location of the shark
mining claim, a copy of which is in evidence,
posted upon a stone monument. three feet high,
upon said mining claim at the point marked OH
plaintiffs ~map-initial point of Shark-on the
9th day of September. A.-Yes.
Odd the co-locators Of plaintiff in the
Shark mining claim place . stake at the northern
end Of the Shark mining claim about the 29th of
September, 1872, to mark the northwest end of
said mining claim? A.-No.
Q-Was the stake set by the eo-locators of
plaintiff during the year 1872, at the southeast
end of the Shark mining claim, to mark the
southeast end of said claim? A.-No.
Odd the plaintiff in April, 1874, set stakes
at each corner of the Shark mining claim. as de.
signated on plaintiffs map to mark the boun-
diaries of said mining claim? Ayes.
Q.-Could such stakes be distinctly seen, and
the boundaries of the claim be traced therefrom?
Ayes.
Odd the plaintiff and his co-owners and
~locators in the Shark mining claim do work of
the value of 500, between the 9th of September,
1872, and the 9th of September, 1878? Ayes.
Odd the plaintiff and his co-workers 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? A.-Yes.
Odd plaintiff and his co-owners and CO.
l~ocators in the Shark mining claim do work of
the value of 500 upon said claim between the
9th day OF September, 1874, and the 9th day OF
September. 1875? Ayes.
Q.-Had plaintiff and his owners and CO.
~locators in the Shark mining claim done work of
the value of $4,000 up to the 9th day of Septem-
Der, 1875. upon said mining claim? A.-No.
Q.-Did the Paymaster notice, as first posted
on the claim, and recorded in little look of
records, contain the same names as ~locators as
the notice under which they now claim? A
No.
Q.-Was the notice of Psymaster, as originally
the present records? A.-No.
Odd the ~locators of the Paymaster mine,
or any one of the new locators, post a new no.
tice on the mine in the latter part of October,
1872? A.-Yes.
Odd such notice change the direction Of
location from easterly and westerly to northerly
and southerly? A. Yes.
Q.-Was such notice ever recorded in the rec
ords of that mining district? A.-No.
Q.-Is the notice of Paymaster mine, as it now
appears on the records, the same as originally
posted and recorded? A.-No.
Odd the owners or ~locators of the Paymas.
ter mine ever put up stakes at each corner of
the claim before the survey for a patent was
made? A.-No,
Overs any stakes ever put up by the owr-
ers of the Paymaster mine prior to the survey
for a patent, other than at the northwest and
southeast end of claim? A.-No.
Q.-Were any mining laws passed by the min
ers of Ward Mining District on the 18th of May,
1872! A.-Not on the 18th, but on the LIST of
May, 1872.
Q.-Were such laws. if any, recognized by all
miners of that district as the Mining Laws of
the district, until repealed October /, 1872 ?
Ayes.
Q.-Were the claims in controversy located
under those mining laws? Ayes.
Q.-Have there been any alteration of record
of the Paymaster mine? A.-Ycs.
DIN what respect has has the record of such
notice been altered, erased or interlined A.
Erased and written over.
Odd John Henry, one of the ~locators, put
up a notice on the claim in October, 1872, claim
in a different direction from the notice thereto.
fore posted or then being on the claim? A.
Yes.
Q.-Was the Paymaster mine originally To-
Gated in an ~easterly and westerly direction? A..
Yes.
Q--Were the words "~easterly and westerly" in
the notice first recorded in the present book of
record? Ayes.
Q.-Were these words erased and other words
substituted ? Ayes.
Q.-What words were substituted, if any
A.--Northerly and southerly.
Q.-State the changes and alterations, also the
words erased. A.-Easterly and westerly erased
and northerly and southerly substituted.
Q.-How many changes of location of Pay
master mine have been made? A.-One.
Odd the Shark mine, as originally located,
conflict or interfere with the location Of the
Paymaster mine as originally located? A.-No,
Odd the grantors of defendant ever notify
the ~locators of the Shark mine that the Shark
location coDficted with the Paymaster location
prior to October, 1872? A.-No.
Q.-Where, and running how many feet each
way from the Paymaster location. was the Pay.
master vein or lode first located +? A.-Three
hundred feet e~asterly, and 1900 feet westerly.
Q.-WAs the notice of the Paymaster placed
on the vein, and recorded in the large record
book, as it is now, prior to the time of the loca,
ton of the Shark? A.-No.
Q.-Who made the changes in the record boob
introduced in evidence ? Ave don't know.
Q.-Have any of the parties connected with
the Martin White Mining Company ever changed
or authorized the change in the records of Ward
District? A.-No.
mining law, rule, or regulation at the time of the
location of the Paymaster, restricting in any
way the number of feet on each side of the cen
ter of the vein, or on each side of the vein
| A.-Yes.
Q.-Was there 500 worth of work done on the