Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1877-04-04

ure11 Dy NE AIra
plemessed BY M. Diekson's
Thesry OF the forgery-JudEe
Hiiiyer's nepiy-Gensrsi Review
Of tho Testimony.
Yesterday morning Mr.. Kirkpatrick
opened the argument for tho plaintiffs In
the case Of 8. @. Barnes OF al. vs.. the Call.
fornia Mining Company. He said: wo
do not think there are any very intricate
points Of law involved In this issue. We
claim that the locations Of Bishop. Corey
and Camp were legal and valid locations,
recorded according to the mining laws at
that timo In operation. One question ct
issue is. did Bishop abandon his claim to
the ground In disputei Upon this point I
reicr you 70 the case Of Moon 70. Rawlings.
volume Sc. page $50. California reports.
by tho evidence Of Corey wc must believe
that at tho time Of tho location Of that
ground mining laws were In force In the
Gold Hill and Virginia Mining Districts,
and the best right TO mining claims Is
vested In those who comply with tho law
In force. Corey's location was not In ac-
cordance with the laws Of the district re-
ferrcd to. In this case Corey never had
his claim recorded. He claims to have
made his location on the 18th OF June.
1889. and no such location appears upon
the records. Again. he located $50 feet.
while the law only allowed 800 feet.
In each particular Corey failed 10 com.
| ply with tho law. AL the miners including
Comstock. Corey and Walsh. knew the laws
werc In force. II We had no better case
than tho defendants upon the ques-
ton Of title. We would hsvo been thrown
out OF court. There must DO o posting Of
notice on the claim, . stepping or Of the
ground and then o r~ecordAtion Of the claim.
Tho defendants hold that q failure 10 re-
cord docs not invalidate o claim. We say
IL does. II the law said II was necessary 10
do any work upon o claim at stated periods
to hold IL. II would be different. Corey
never had any right 10 the $50 feet except
that vested through Camp and Bishop.
Addressing the Jury Mr.. Kirkpatrick con-
tinued: Tho defendants make two points
first, that John Bishop never had any
title, and, second. II no had. he conveyed Il
away to W. G. Barron In tho deed OF Sep
tomLer m 1901. Ilut tbese mint do not
%s.simiistc' n pi.hop hsI no tiile. WHY
tbosa tremendous efforts 10 validate Inc
Jio.r vsIlcv desd, Wby has Inc whole
coast bsen ransacked for evidence regard.
ing The validity of hat decd? They have
made a ,trong lght 10 proyc tbs deed n |
yaIid. thereby showing that Dishop must
have had uome title, Tho attorney here
read the original notice Of location mado
Inv Corey. Campa and Bishop and continued:
Since the 2ist day Of juno, 1859. this no.
tice has stood on tho records OF Gold Hill
the only notice that covers the $50 feet |
of ground. IL occupies tho third page Of
tho book. whcro all could SEQ Il who de-
sired. There IL one thing ! wish To call
your attention to: You will SOC that at the
bottom Of these three notices II reads,
1.-THE above three claims arc held In com-
pany." and originally the notices read,
ave three claim" etc. But, behold! The
hand OF the vandal has been at work.
Some miscreant has 10 run . pen through
the Eve" and writs over IL IL thereby
hoping to segregate the three claims. IL
shows . villainous hand was ~ work a. we
foundation OF the structure, 'cntting ~ tho
very root OF u title. Ia the dawnihg
days OF our greatness bishop and camp
each located 200 feet south OF the Penrod'
or Ophir. claim. Before they had done
much o brother miner named Jessup. was
killed by Bill Sides, and they with others
took Sides TO Carson. then Eagle Valley.
10 trial. When they returned the ground
north had become much richer, y tney
found Corey occupying n claiming the
ground they had located previous 10 their
departure. They made an amicablc |