Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1877-08-23
EUREKA vs.. RICHMOND.
VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
The Leading Features Of the
Opinion.
END LINES MUSTBE RESPECTED.
A Stay Of Proceedings asked for by the
Richmond.
VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
LINES MUsTBE RESPECTED.
Another Legal Battle Probable.
ESPECIAL TO THE SENTINEL

SAN Francisco. Aug. %.
In the Uniied States Circuit Court
for the District of Nevada, sitting in
this city, Justice Field delivered an
opinion this morning in the great min
ing case entitled the Eureka Con soli-
dated Mining Company VS.. the Rich
mond Mining Company of Nevada.
The opinion is embraced in Ga manu-
script pages. ani the realizing occupied
one hour OF time. The Circuit Court
room was excessively crowded with
spectators, many of whom reside in
the State of Nevada. The action was
in tie nature OF an ejectment, the de-
PENDANT claiming the right to follow
the vein or ore body from its groupings
on their ground as far as they pleased.
irresp ectIvely of the patent covering
the adjoining ground. After giving "A
history of the initiat0ry legal proceed
ings in the case, anI ths isrt that ths
controversy involves property of the
value of several hundred thousand
dollars. the opinion pays a high com
pliment to the great ability OF The re-
spective counsel: compares the evi
dence given by practical miners and
the evidence of scientists rs TO the
geological formation OF the claims; al-
ludes to the glass models of tile claims,
workings and surroundings, and
adds: Seldom, IL eve have WI seen a
ease so fully explained. A full de
srription of the re ,pective claims and
the geological formations are given.
The opinion then goes ON to discuss
the character OF the zone, as Ia whetlI-
er il il a continuous lode; considers the
meaning of the several mining acts OF
Congress, the definition II the term
"lode'' as understood 10y miners and
as defined 10y law aud science; argues
that the definition of lode" was first
given by miners and before IL was de
fired 10y chemists or scientists, aud
that the mining acts of Congress WERE
framed for The benefit of miners; CONF
pares the acts of 1866 and 1872, and
says, " are of the opinion hat the
terms used in the acts OF Congress are
applicable to all ores lying in ore
bndies;" gives the character of the
walls inclosing the mineral-heariug
rock, and concludes that the limestone,
quartzite and shale must have been
broken up, celebrating all traces of
qualification, ~ the broken, crushed
aud tisSurrd condition appears on all
sides. The broken. crushed and fis'
sured condition of the limestone
differs from any other limestone
in the country. kid OF iron
is found in the vicinity, leading
the miner to infer the presence OF gold
and silver bearing rock. and the lime
stone entities tito the naime of mineral
bearing rock. The evidence in the
case shows that limestone Is "A mineral
bearing earth or rock. One witness
t~es,iii-s that the deposit between the
qnartZite and shals is, he considers, a
single deposit. Another witness con
siders the entire mass of limestone
mated with mineral ore, ar, in
other words, Il great lode or vein a
considered by miners, but science does
not adopt this theory. There is no
question OF the sincerity or ability OF
scientists. however. The opinion elab-
orately reviews the scientific testimony
Of Clarence King and those witnesses
who corrobotated with him in opin
ion, and comes To the conclusion that
the acts of Congress use the term vein
or lode rs miners understand it. The
theory OF separate or distinctive bodies
of ores, therefore, falls To the ground.
The acts OF 1866 and 1872 dealt with
practical miners. The conclusion
reached is hat the Limestone in Ruby
Hill constitutes one lode of rock bear.
iny metal. The rival interests and re-
spective patents of the opposing com
panies was next considered. The
question Of priority OF location is
deemed of no consequence in the case.
No one but the Government has a
right to objest to the lines of location.
The respective patents were fully set
forth. The defendant claims that ii
can follow a vein from its groupings
on its ground wherever il may lead.
The act OF 1866 was again referred To
aud the laws of the Eureka Mining
District of 1865 explained. New
district laws were made in 1869. under
which the Richmond and Tip. Top
claims were located, but neither the
act of Congress ri 1856 or the miners
rules speak of side lines. II was
claimed, however, that the act of 1866
allowed the locator to follow a vein in
to the adjoining land. but the miners
meant that the location could follow a
vein to the extent of the number of feet
on the surface, else he might out
all his neighbors anu lake The entire
ledge. This construction of mining
rules is given IN every mining district.
The patent don't authorize a patentee
To go outside of the surface lines. The
line Is on the side of claim and not
, The line on the end. The line taken
|, does not measur the extent of the
miners right as carving ont a section
Of The lode beyond which he can not
pass. The diagram of a location
must embrace more than lineal
measurement. The act of 1877
allows a locator the dips, angles
and spurs of a vein cropping on his
location. but not beyond the limits de-
fined by the sct of 1866. The opinion
, concludes as follows: Our opinion
therefore is that both the defendant
and the plaintiff by virtue of their re
: spective patents. whether issued upon
locations, under the act of 1872. could
only follow the veins ar lodes lying
within the lines drawn vertically
downward at the end of he respective
locations and that each took the ores
found in all veins or lodes. h apex OF
top OF which lay within those
To-. a aA. s@.ll h.