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

Judge Hillyer said: This 10 not an In
portant suit In any sense ave one. 1t
certainly involves no important law points.
But, here you have on one side ono OF tho
largest mining companies In the State,
which has boon In peaceful possession Of
its ground for over seventeen years ; on
the other side. q man comes In and dis
putes their title. Tlis 10 not q respectable
suit; there must be no compromise. for II
there Ia II throws open the doors to my
ons who might wish 10 bring . suit. II
makes no difference who were the original
locators-whethcr II was Corey and Com
stock. or Corey. Camp and Bishop. This
testimony only goes 10 show the credibility
Of those t~estifying to the facts. Corey, We
think. told the truth. He has testified
substantially tho same In other suits
that Of Camp versus the California
Mining Company and tho Kinney suit.
There can DO no connection between
these notices - certainly none between
Corey, Bishop and Camp. Tho words
"in company" have reference alone
to Camp and Bishop. Mr.. Hillycr duelt
Of length upon the circumstances Of Blsh-
ops habits during all the timo that has
elapsed since the California Company has
been In peaceful possession Of the ground.
How he had mined, aud prospected, aud
chopped wood. Tho fact that . man had
10 work for his living. and still left his
claim for fifteen years. which was worth
from $l5, 900 TO SIS. 600, makes q case that
cannot be respectable. Tho plaintiffs say.
even II Corey had located, his tito was cut
Cd by tho subsequent location Of Bishop,
Camp and himself. Mr.. Hillycr here eI-
planned the nature OF tho notices. claim.
Ing they were each separate and distinct,
each notice having the Recorders name at
the end thereof. and tho memorandum at
the bottom referring 10 them ~ being In
company. was intended only for the north
claim OF Dishopsand Camp, and II techni-
calities OF the records ara 70 have any
weight. tho defendants have o title most
fully established. Prom the day Of that
location John Bishop never worked on tho
California ground. and yet, In 1859. tho
prospecting company was working there.
and he could have sold his interest-if he
had any-for 5000, but no never offered
II for sale. never made any objections to
other parties working there, or said any
thing about II until now. In 1850
there was q claim Of fifty feet on the north
ern side Of the Camp claim. That
Is what tho plaintiffs claim. We say
Il was $50 feet south Of that. They were
called the California boys. They sold
their interest and We havo their deeds.
bishops testimony was read TO the Jury
and Mr.. Hillyer said: What would b. tho
Of trying TO impcach Dlshopf His
own testimony impeaches him. IL 10
shown that In 1859 Bishop and Camp
claimed tho $50 feet known NJ Central
No 2. and the Kinney ground and interests
In the old or original Central. adjoining
the 0phir on the south. Ills interests In
these Centrals passed to Hammock. and
on tho 24th OF September Hammock
agreed 10 convey TO Bryant and
Raymond the same for 2 1000. con-
the theory Of tho defense that
Il was the two "centrals" which Camp
and Bishop owned aud conveyed. Neither
Camp nor Bishop over owned any Of the
ground, and consequently could
not convey IL. hut 1t did belong TO Corey.
md he sold half Of II to Comstock. They
Ihcn make u contract with the California
prospcctors. wholly ignoring Bishop, who
never had anything TO do with II what
nyer. Comstock sold his interest 10
and Corey sold these to Bryan. and
Ihese titles being traced. show the title we
,lAim. which has never been disputed mn.
now. The remainder Of Judge Hillycr's
argument will bs given tomorrow.