Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1877-10-04
EUREKA vs.. d.
what II Thought Of the Late Decis-
ION In London.

W A1e y ~ VI tne H<0te U6CnS
ION In London.
We are receipt of the London Mn
ing Journal, bearing date Sept. 18th,
The full ext of Judge Fields decision
had reached London, and considerable
space Is devoted by the Journal to its
consideration. 1t will be remembered
that in the earlier stages of this litiga
ton the Mining Journal was especially
savage in its comments on the plaintiff.
A wonderful change of sentiment is
now observable in our transatlantic
contemporary. 1t even goes to the ex-
tent of pronounciDg the decision cor
rect, and advises the British share
holders of the Richmond 10 abandon
all further efforts in what 1t terms
"useless litigation" We extract from
the Journal as follows:
at has already been announced that
the United States Circuit Court for the
District of Nevada, sitting in San Fran
cisco, has given judgment adverse TO
the Richmond Company, and much as
the result may be regretted for the
sake of The British shareholders con
cerned, there can, unfortunately, be
little doubt that the decision Is correct
Ia law and in accordance with the
principles Of equity recognized both in
this country and in America.
During the week the full details OF
the decision in the case of the Eureka
Company against the Richmond Com
pany has been received. and an ab-
stract will be found in another column.
That the decision is correct in law and
Ia strict accordance with the principles
of equity, as recognized both In this
country and America, cannot reasona-
bly, be doubted AFT e reading the sec.
tons of the United States o q bearing
upon the subject and the explanation
of the dispute; and il is therefore to be
hoped that the shareholders will no
permit themselves to be induced to
continue a useless litigation, more es-
pecially as it appears to be a general
opinion that, in the property legally
belonging to the Richmond Company.
there is an abundance Of mineral
which, II judiciouslv worked, will con-
tinue to yield the shareholders fair
profits for some years to come. The
legal bearings of the case will be- more
fully referred to in next weeks Mining
Journal.
Briefly explained. the dispute be.
tween the two companies was this:
The United States law of 1866 author
lied the grant of patents for given
veins or lOdes. The patentee received
the exclusive right TO work that par
ticular lode, but could no touch n
other met with in working, as the
latter might be patented to another
owner. This inconN eDient Law was
repealed in 1872, when il was enacted,
retrospectively and prosPectively, that
the patentee should haveia right to- all
lodes within the surface boundary
lines mentioned in the patents, such
surface boundary lines being assumed
to continue vertically downwsrds To
the center Of the earth. The represen
~tatives of the Richmond Com pany, ig
noring the act OF 1872, and relying on
the act OF 1866, appropriated ore which
they knew at the time to be within the
Eureka vertical boundary lines, and,
as a consequence, will now have to RI
fund their neighbours property, which
is estimated t. be worth $500 900. 1t
Is probable that from this mount the
o $ of returning, etc., will be deduct
ed, as similar principles prevail in En-
glish and American courts; and The
best course for all concerned would be
for all litigation TO be stopped, for the
amount TO be refunded to the Eureka
to be settled by arbitration, and for an
arrangement to be made for its paw
ment by installments extending over a
series of years. By this means the
Richmond Company might continue
to pay dividends to the shareholders,
and no one would have any serious
cause for complaint"