Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1877-04-05

California Mining Company still occupies
| the attention Of the United States Circuit
Court now in session in Carson. Yester-
day morning Judge Hillyer concluded his
argument for the defense. lie said; In
the trial Of Camp against the California
Company. although Bishop did not recol'
| lect whether he was q witness or not, and
II a witness. did not recollecs what be
testified to. Mr.. Hermann. Mr.. Sunderland
and Mr.. Mckay all agree that he was a
witness. AMI all tell the same story OF
Bi.hop's testimony on tho trial. aud that
| pi.hop testified that in June. 1859. he and
| Camp hal some surface claims, and Thai Il
was agreed between them that Bishop
| Corey anil Camp should have the Central
| ground Jointly. and Corey should have the
800 feet aficrward known ~ tho Caiifor-
| mia ground exclusively.
An attempt has been made to Attack the
rputation of Mr.. Sunderland, altogether
| u~neallel.ior AMI out Of the record. Coun-
s,l for the defense has stndiously avoided
a.Ling any questions as 10 tho character
| Of IA. witnesses. prcferring tn let the Jury
see anal Iude. for themselves. But. II
Di.hop iil give that testimony, that
shon,l DO tho end Of this ease. And will
| the iury tell why bishop should have been
,all.l A. A witness In that case for the
| California Mining Company II he was not
!, ,1s.IySy Ths,cfor,. n Ia proved almost
aa.insi,.iv that Inc did testify on that
,risi In isit lat he nor Camp had any
-, IN ,h.t ,rounJ. This Il further
n-.'.th r.. az. Letter from Mckay 10
,,'u "s-ran &C. written an hour after
II -,i,,o.v v,s given. II. therefore,
."o nn, ",,is,cd ,hat Bi.hop in this
80 h.. s.arn ,ir,ctIv contrary 10 what
~ ,I,ia.I In ,h,, s,.e. tbcn I don't Know
~ ".a 80 yon
~. iI,i,..r ,5,n considered the oblec.
49,, ~ -, MALI IN the refreshed
u'as ~ veal witne.ses. es,scially
man,'s' c',,aa't marsrI ami M. Her.
- r,.a naamo,:c. ~ ,he.e gentlemen
" ..a...,J..liv t,rmei logical
""' r. r.. in,or I'm Ina box
""n IN .hsra no Aimed ON The Ith of
~. ,.-e. H., no ansver. and there
49," - ,h,t ,on cannot tell, But will
.n, ~ VIM undertake 10 saw that by taking
a"s ". ~" III ia la
a weeks time You cannot ,evaii w. va.
and ia circnhis'anc's "c",
logical memory on' o.ns'
Bishops memory; lie testi,tu tna' ne Nv
ceivcd nothing Tor his a~i'enuanee a'u SCI.
vices In tho Camp case IN ioot, iha'
was. 80 far as the testimony IN TINS case
gocs, the thirl largest STAKE he ever hanih
life. Colonel Hermann testlnes not only
that Bishop wss paid 500 at hal time Out
that he paid IL to him himself. and no pro-
inccs the bill Of items. Therefore, SUD-
nit o. YOU that no reliance whatever
shouid b. placcd On the statements OF y John
Bishop. II he did not remember TINS
fact. then he does not remember anything
hat he has testified to here /; N u he
does not remember Ii, no has sworn false.
IN. anil his testimony u all unworthy oi
belief. Mr.. Hillycr concluded by review
ing anal snmmarizin: his argument.
Il. \. Mesick followed. he also spoke
for III. defense. He said That hc r.coe-
nized the division OF the case ss niaue ny
Mr.. Dickson, into two heals. one was
the title 81 John Bishop. and The other the
validity OF his deed To barron. IL Ihe
Jury should ind that John bishop never
hal any title 10 the ground IN uisputr'
then they must give . verdict against the
plaintiffs. /: anil II they should lind that he
lil have the title. but. since. hal conveyed
that title to the defendants, then You must
give a verdict for the defendants. lis de-
voted himself to the discussion Of the lat
t.r noint. Tho title 81 this property was
cIou,,lrI by the record claims ~ Bishop and
Camp. and before the money was all paid
IN uryan anil Sanborn, barron 4 Co. In
sisted that the title should be cleared mp.
Tie iii, waa cleared M by DEGREES Of the
court In lsGi against bishop and Camp.
Wby. gentlemen, when we were In the
forgery business, did not We also forge the
nam. az Camp II was A. easy 10 forge
,vo J,eia as one. Ii would have saved
80 .,r.,.ix. lawsuits. The counsel on
a. o,bsr .iJe ..y there il an Inconsistency
T., anr lsfen.e. do Won SEQ any ~inconsis-
,s,cy i, onr cassF
Ti.y .,y Nc have hal 10 ransack the
xhol, coast for evidence 10 sustain the
Ill Vs.. We have had TO ransack the
whol. coast. not to sustain the deed. but
An crush out A conspiracy. Counsel here
Entered into a lengthy discussion OF the
nculiarities which marked the signatures
u, ,hc IscI anil argued that IL would have
I'm imnos.ibl. for any person or parsons
a, re- ior,.d them. Uthis deed il false.
~" H.. h, Issn men IA inspection so
W. I, la h..n recorded twice, il has