Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1877-03-30
THE BISHOP CLAIM.
n q. Barnes and Others Aagainss
The California Miaiag Company
"A Heavy Sutt.

The case Of Barnes ct al. versus the CAL
ifornia Mining Company was commenced
In the Unitrd states Circuit Court at Car
son ON the 23i Of the present month. and
is still progressing. kirkpatrick. CANAL.
Lindsay and Dickson are counsel for the
plaintiffs, and Il. \. Mesiek, W. \. M.sick
and @. J. lIniyer for the defendants.
Mr.. Dickson made tho opening state
ment for tho plaintiffs, which was very
lengthy. lie said tina, the plaintiffs claim
50 feet undivided in the southerly $50 u
the northerly $50 feet Of tho ground
claimed by tho California Mining Com
pany. This Is an action Of electment
brought by s. q. Barnes and others against
the California Mining Company for the
recovery Of this 50 feet undivided in a
percel u $50 feet. The plaintiffs claim 10
derive their title to this ground from ono
John Bishop. who was one OF the first To-
Gators upon the Comstock, being one Of
the original locators OF this California
ground. There are two principal issues
in this case. The first is. whether John
Bishop had any interest In the ground at
the time he conveyed u 10 the plain
tifs. The second will be. whether = GER
tain deed. under which the defendants
now claim title 10 the ground is q valid
deed or . forgery. In May, 1859, Bishop
and IL u. Camp located Gao feet OF ground
upon the Comstock lode. commencing at
what IL now known a. the south line Of
the Ophir. where Bishop located 900 feet
Camp. commencing at the south limo Of
Bishops claim. located 800 feet more. Al
that time there were mo mining laws In
the district requiring the recording OF
mining locations. Owing 10 the killing
Of . man named Jessup. Bishop and Camp
were obliged 10 be away In Eagle Valley for
several weeks. Upon their return they
found James Corey prospecting their claim
and asserting his ownership 10 IN interest
In the ground. The three consulted and
agreed 10 settle il without difficulty In this
manner: The 0phir Company had struck
some very rich rock a few days before. and
these three men all concluded that the
nearer they could get b the Ophir
ground the better 1t would be; 80
they each located $50 feet. Bishop
should have 50 feet next To tho 0phir line.
and Camp and Corey so feet. as we'll a.
$50 feet at the extr, me southeast. having
20 feet undivided In each $50 feet. The
three claims were considered In company. |
In October. iscO. ID. W. Bryan entered |
into Q contract with W. l.. Barron 10 con-
vey to him tllarronl ~ feet and 2 inches
out Of 800 feet. The money To he paid for
this ground Was Sij,O0O. $4,000 to be
paid down. 5000 in ten days. $4,000 in
thirty DAYS and the balance in sixty DAYS. |
A deed WAS made To Barron on the LIST day
Of December. 1860. At that time tho re-
naming $4,000 had not been paid. AMI
having discovered that Camp and Bishop
had interests In the ground. Barron refused
10 pay it'll Bryan could convey the title Of
these two men. Altar that an instrument
p~urporting TO be . deed from bishop was
ing $4,000. The plaintiffs claim that
this deed Is o forgery. II bears date VI
September ID. 1861. aud was executed In
Bear Valley. Mariposa county, California.
ID Ia alleged that . man named Sanborn
paid $500 To have the forgery executed.
q. J. Hillyer opened the case for the
defendants by stating that Bishop never
owned any interest In those two claims
marked on the map a. the Camp and Corey
elaims-that the whole VI II was owned by
Corey.
Several important witnesses were intro.
duced on the part of tho PLAINTIFF, and a
case sufficiently strong to command the
respect Of the whole legal fraternity has
been made out by the counsel. Testimony
has been introduced 10 show that the deed
~purporting to DO signed by Bishop could
not have been signed at the time Of
its date. Givens. Phillips and liicArd
testified that sanborn did not arrive In
Bear Valley. where Bishop was living.
until September -, 1861. i've days after
the date OF the deed. Bishop swore that
he never aligned the paper. and Owens
Wa equally positive that no never signed
10 - Q witness. Experts were introduced
TO show the ~genuineness Of tho signatures,
but nothing satisfactory was obtained.
Yesterday W. d. Owens was recalled.
lie examined tho Chollar pay-rolis cover.
ing = period Of . year or more, and said