Arizona citizen. [volume] (Tucson, Pima County, A.T. [i.e. Ariz.]) 1870-1880, 1876-07-15

The McCrackin Mine Case.

Orr e: ais vs. McCrackin ct ais is thu
title to a very important mining SUIT re
Gently tried before Judge Tweed in No
have county. The Enterprise gives the
basis of the suit in these words:
The plaintiffs entered the claim il
the temporary absence OF the employee
of the defendant, AlOnZo T. Davis, the
owner of the mine; and when the EN-.
'ployee returned to the mine two hours
afterwards. they met him with Henry
rifles leveled towards him. Afterwards
they kept a guard 10 watch for the ap-
proach of any one who should come 10
. lake possession of the mine for Davis.
Judge Tweed's decision is also pub
lished and Is in favor of Davis, but is too
long for our columns at this time, and
the closing part Of it will give the
Judges views with ample fulness for
practical purposes. 1t is ringing notice
to jumpers that they will not be sup
ported by Judge Tweed But here is the
closing of the judges decision:
Ii is clear 70 me from the evidence,
that at the time the plaintiffs entered
upon the mine. il was in the actual pos
session of the defendant Davis, by his
employee Winters; that the plaintiffs
were fully advised Of such possession
and occupancy; that their entry was pur-
poselv and calculatingly made during
what they knew or had every reason to
believe was the temporary absence of
Winters: that the entry was fraudulent
and was made with intent to hold and
maintain the possession so wrongfully
obtained. by force and the use OF dead
" weapons, if such resort was neces-
sarv. to enable them to keep possession
of the mine. and that so long as plain
tifTs retained possession, IL was retained
by force and intimidation, against the
former occupant of the mine.
If a possession so obtained and so
held will entltlc a party to bring and
maintain this action, any one may en-
ter bv fraud, or stealth, or force into
the possession Of another, where he suS-
poets the occupants title 10 be in any
degree defective, and then by alleging
his possession demand of all claimants
that they show their right by legal ev-
idence as against his possession, so OBJ
tanned by fraud or iorce,-l say if this /
is The law. a darker cloud hangs over
the title to all mining claims in this Ter
a cloud created by the law
ilselt-than any other vet brought TO
the courts of the Territory for adjudl-
cation
To hold under the proofs in this case
that the plaintiffs had such possession .
Of this claim, as to entitle them to .
bring this action, would be to offer a
premium for deeds OF violence and for
the assumption of right by strong hand.
1t would be to put in hazard the whole
mining industry Of the country, and to
give to what Is called in common par
lance among miners a fighting inter
est in claim. a standing in the courts
equal with thar of honest claimants.
wish to emphasize my decision
upon this question of possession so
hat while | am upon the bench and
ny rulings in this regard are unrevers-
I'll IL may be understood that the pos
session OF q mining claim or other real
state, obtained b. stealth, or fraud, or
Orce and violence and so maintained,
$ not "a possession which can entitie
he one 50 obtaining and holding it to
my rights Is against the true owner of.
UGH property