Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1877-08-09

6fveu the Remainder OF the
Week tO File their Findfngs-
The COurt Promises AN Early
D~ecision.
ESPECIAL TO THE SENTINEL
SAN FRANCISCO, August 8.
MI. Wren addressed the Court this
morning on the questions of fact on
behalf of defendant. His speech oc.
cupied all of the morning session, and
was a searching review of all the evi-
dence adduced and theories advanced
In the case. He quoted at great length
from various authors in support Of his
views, and dwelt on the doctrine, up
held by the custom Of miners and the
decisions of courts, that the first 10.
Gator and discoversr Of a lode Is en-.
titled to 1t, with all Of its dips and
variations, no matter to what depth it
may lead. He claimed that by virtue
of the Richmond location, made in
1869, and subsequent locations and
purchases covering the ground I'm dis
pute, gave his company an ~uudoubted
legal and equitable right to its pos
session. The Potts chamber, he said,
was not on ground belonging &c the
Eureka. On the contrary, the Rich
mond Company held United States
patents for every inch Of the surface
everything the deposit in controversy.
This, taken in connection with the in
d%isputable fact that the Richmond
Company had a complete ore connec
ton from their point of location to the
Potts chamber. fortified the defendant
impregnably In the right to hold and
enjoy It.. Both the speeches of Will
son and Wren were lIsten'G TO with
profound attention by the Court and
audience.
Judge X. 8. Mesick began the clos
ing argument at 2 o'clock p. M. He
devoted some time To an argument
upon the construction Of the compro-
mise deed between the parties. The
remainder OF the speech Vas devoted
to q powerful grouping of the facts and
evidence in support of the one lode
theory. He attacked Mr.. Wilson's ar
eunents on the law and concluded the
case at half past four. Judge Mesick
said at the beginning OF his argument
that the question, Invested of all out
side matters, IL narrowed down to the
inquiry, (Which of the two mine
owners in the present controversy is
vested with title in the disputed
ground ?" In the course of the inves-
tigation everything was contributed to
the solution of h a question. The
Richmond claims a mine on the north
west eide of the Eureka, aud the Eu
reka claims to be the next owner. A
series of claims, the X X. Phenix,
and Jackson follow, i'm all "A mile in
lateral extension, running from north.
west to southeast. This boundary
line involves q very few simple con.
str~uctions. but il, as the Eureka con.
tends, this lode Is q body of
limestone, then the question be-
comes simply whether by virtue
Of patents boundary lines are pro-
vided which fix the rights of
the parties. III this be a whole vein
or lode, or deposit, or zone, then these
patents have provided acomplete solu-
lion of the question. If this body is
bounded by shale and quartzite, it
must be confined to its boundary lines,
for the law of 1866 does not provide
that a ledge can be followed according
TO its strike, though IL may be followed
in its dip. II this be a vein or deposit,
there is another aspect To the contro-
versy. and that is the defendant ought
tn be bound by the agreement between
the two parties which is embraced in
deeds establishing a boundary line be
tween the claims i'm the Eureka Dis
trict. which confines the Richmond to
the northwest and the Eureka to the
southeast side of a fixed line.
The wonder is that any one can
be found to try to circumvent
that line because Of some far fetched
constructions Of a new kind of deposit
of ore. If plaintiff is right in regard
to the land, then the ledge from the
Jackson to the Richmond, being a
mineralized lode bounded by shale
and quartzite, establishes the bound
airy lines across the vein. The bound
airy line on the surface is useless I'M
less the same develops as work de-
velops in depth. He instanced the
usages Of the miners in Eureka District
as proof Of this point. The Judge fur
ther elaborated upon the boundary
line between the two claims, and the
dip and strike of the ledge, and ex-
planned the law of Congress bearing
upon this view Of the case. The argu-
ment concluded at 4:25. The Court
asked counsel to file their findings
this week in order that a. early a de-
cision as possible could be reached.
This carries the decision over 10 next
week, and probably to the latter part
thereof. The findings of counsel will
hardly be ready before Saturday, and
the Court will require some days fur
Their time to examine. Your reporter
heard mi of the attorneys remark, al
the conclusion of the days proceed
ings, that he did not look for the de-
cision before the middle or last Of next
week. The Court only alluded to the
desire to render an early decision, but
threw out no intimation as to the time
that would be taken TO consider the