Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-10-26

The shark and Paymaster Claims
From the Virginia Chronicle
The decision Of the Supreme Court Of
this State in the case of Gleason vs..
the Martin White Mining Company, has
just been published. The case is an inn
portant one, and a summary Of the points
involved will be read with interest. The
statement Of the case is made by the Su-
preme Court as follows:
This is an action to determine the right
OF possession Of certain mining ground in
the Ward District, White Pine county.
ton of a claim called the Shark, and the
defendant is the grantee of the location Of
the Pavmaster. Both claims were located
on the same ledge-tlie Paymaster in July,
the Shark in September-and the princi-
pal question in the case is to the validity
Of the Paymaster location.
1t appears that on the 18th Of July, 1872,
Thomas f. Ward located the Paymaster
mine, claiming 1900 feet ~easterly and 1 200
feet westerly from this monument, run
ming along the course Of the vein." The
claim was recorded next day, July 18th.
Subsequent developments proved that the
course or strike of the vein was southeast
and northwest.
On the 9th OF September the ~locators of
the Shark discovered the groupings of the
same vein at a point about 400 feet north
west of the location point of the Paymas-
ter, posted a notice Of location, and on the
following day had the claim recorded.
Thomas L. Ward. the locator Of the Pay
master, was Recorder Of the District, and
although he went upon the ground for the
purpose Of making the Shark record, and
saw its proximity to the Paymatser claim,
he made no complaint or protest. In the
following month, however, after some work
had been lone upon the Shark claim. no.
tice was served upon the owners that they
were on the Paymaster vein. They, how
ever, denied that it was the same vein.
They claimed a cross vein, and declared
that if it turned out that they were on the
Paymaster they would give it up. The de-
cision contains the following further state
ment of facts:
About this time--on October 10, 1871
John Henry, one of the Paymaster To-
Gators. took down their notice n put up
another, the same in all respects as the one
removed, except that it claimed 300
feet southerly and 1900 feet northerly
from the monument, instead oil 300 feet
e~asterly and 1000 feet westerly. On the
same day he drove down two stakes, one
at the northwest end OF the Paymaster and
the other at the southeast end. They were
marked, 'Northwesterly stake Of the Pay
master and "Southeasterly stake OF the
Paymaster." These stakes were on a line,
or very nearly on o line, with the crop
pings Of the vein as now developed, and
within a few feet Of the center line OF the
| claim as now surveyed. At some Tim
subsequent to the change Of the notice on
the mine. a corresponding change was
made in the recoru Of the claim by erasing
the words ~easterly and westerly and in
sorting the words southerly and northerly.
The jury could not find who made this
change in the record, but the District
Judge was of the opinion, and SO are we,
thai it was done by Ward and Henry, but
without any fraudulent intent.
In the meantime, on the LIST OF October,
the laws of the district had been changed
so as to conform more nearly to the Act of
Congress Of May 10, 1872, it being es-
pecia!ly provided that ~locators should have
300 feet of surface ground on each side Of
their vein, to include, of course, not only
the vein originally located, but all veins
within the surface lines. Or. s.. Section
2.322.)
1t is found as a fact that sufficient woik
has been done uuder each OF these loca-
tions to satisfy the requirements Of the law
of Congress aud the rules of the district.
The Paymaster location was never marked
upon the ground in any other way than by
the three stakes upon the line of the crop
pings-one at each end and one at the
point of discover, until it was surveyed
for the purpose of the patent application,
in October, 1875. The Shark location was
never marked upon the ground in any way
except by the monument at its initial
point. until April, 1874, when Gleason set
stakes at the four corners Of the surface
claim. On these facts, the District Judge
concluded that the Paymaster location was
valid, and, as a consequence, that the sub
segment location of the Shark on the same
ground was invalid. In accordance with
this conclusion the Judgment Of the Dis
trict Court was for the defendant.
The plaintiff, appealing from the juds-
ment and from the order denying her mo-
ton for a new trial, makes a number of
assignments Of error, which, however, are
all involved in the three propositions fol-
lowing. 1t is contendcd
First-That the Paymaster claim was
not located in conformity with the Act OF
Congress and the rules Of the district, and
cor s%equently that it was void.
Secoad-That the Paymaster l~ocators, if
they ever had a good claim, abandoned it.
Third-That they are estopped by their
own acts from asserting any claim adverse
to the Shark.
The Court holds that the Paymaster
location was sufficiently regular; that there
is no question but that the Paymaster
~locators were the original discoveries; that
they made a bona fde attempt to locate
property; that their claim was notorious;
and that they have continued to occupy
and develop it, and that the Shark ~locators
were aware Of the priority Of the Paymaster
claim. and originally repudiated any in
tention OF locating upon the same vein.
The Court repeats the statement made in a
previous case, that the words .'southerly'
or 'northerly,' or s'easterly" and west
erly" are Of no possible significance; that
the meaning really is that the claim il
located along the course Of the vein. The
other two grounds on which the plaintiffs
relied are dismissed with a word as Of no
consequence whatever. The opinion is by
Justice Beatty. Justice Leonard concurring
without reservation. and Chief Justice
Hawley concurring, but disagreeing with
his associates in constituting some points OF
the mining laws of the United States. The
Court further states, in q supplemental
opinion, that since a first conclusion was
reached the Supreme Court OF California
has decided two cases, in which q contrary
view to its own is held on a vital point. but
o review has but confirmed the first
opinion
A Suggestion.