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


mining suit la tried in the Distric
Court of White Pine county last week
The case involved the title to a scope o
mining ground estimated to be worti
II million or more of dollars. The
cause was entitled Gleason VS.. Tn,
Martin White Mining Company. The
Gleason party had for u basis of action
q claim known as the Shark and the
Martin White Company rested theii
case and rights on the celebrated Pay.
master location. Forty-seven special
issues were submitted to the jury. As
the case has excited considerable in.
terest in mining circles, we herewith
give the findings Of the jury as SET
forth in a duly certified copy Of the
verdict, furnished by the Clerk of the
court, emitting merely the name of the
foreman of the jury, Geo. p. McCon.
key, whose signature is appended to
each of the questions and answers.
l.. Was the notice Of location of the
Shark mining claim, a copy Of which
is in evidence, posted upon a tone
monument three (3) feet high, upon
said mining claim at the point marked
on the plaintiffs map Initial point of
Shark" on the 9th day OF September,
1872, by the locators of said claim
Yes.
2. Did the co-locators OF plaintiff in
the Shark mining claim place a stake
at the N. w. end of the Shark mining
claim about the Goth day Of Sc ptem Der,
1872, to mark the northwest end of
said mining claim?
No.
3. Was a stake set by the c%o-loca-
tors of plaintiff during the year 1872 at
the southeast end OF the Shark mining
| claim to mark the southeast end Of
said claim9
No.
4. Did the plaintiff in April, 1874, set
| stakes at each corner of the Shark
mining claim, as designated on plain
titfs map. to mark the boundaries of
said claim?
Yes.
s.. Could such stakes be distinctly
seen aud the boundaries OF the claim
traced therefrom
Yes.
6. Did the plaintiff and his DOWN
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, 1872, and the 9th
day Of September, 1873?
Yes.
7. 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 oh day of
September, 1874?
Yes.
8. Did plaintiff and his coo wuers
and co-locators in the Shark mining
claim DO work of the value of 800
upon said claim between the 9th day
of September, 1874, and the 9th day OF
September, 1875?
Yes.
0. Had plaintiff and his co-owners
and 70 locators in the Shark mining
claim done work To the value oi $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
anne as locators as the notice under
which they now claim
No.
IL. Was the notice OF Paynaster
as originally recorded in the little
book. correctly transcribed in the
present records?
No.
II. Did the locators Of the Paymas-
ter mine. or any n of the locators,
post a new notice on The mine in the
latter part of October, 1872?
Yes.
10. Did such notice change the di-
rection OF location from easterly and
westerly to northerly and southerly :?
Yes.
IA. Was such notes ever recorded
in the records Of hat mining district =?
No.
Is. Is the notice Of Paymaster minp,
as it now appears on the records, the
same as originally posted and re
corded
No.
Is. Did the owners or locators of the
Paymasler mine ever put up stakes at
each corner of the claim before the
survey for a patent was made
No.
IL. Were any stakes ever put by
the owners of the Paymaster mine
prior to the survey for a patent other
than at northwest and southeast end Of
claim Z?
No.
Is. Were any mining laws passed
by the miners of Ward district on the
18th day of May, 1872?
Not on the 18th, but on the lst of
Nav, 1872.
10. Were such laws, If any, recog.
nized by all miners of that district az
the mining laws of thai 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 erasures OF
such record Of notice, or in such re-
cord?
Yes.
%. In what respect has the record
OF such notice been altered, erased oil
interlined
Erased and written over.
"a. Did John Henry, one Of the 10.