The Pioche weekly record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1877-1900, 1879-07-12
LATEST NEWS BY MAIL.

wAsHISaroN. July 8.
The Secretary of the Interior has annou nced
decision reversing the decision of the Commits.
sioner of the General Land Office in the case II
the Iowa Mining Company versus the Bonanza
Company Of Nevada, and laying down q new
principle of great Importance in mining contro.
versies The Bonanza Company, in January.
1876 made application for sos feet of the
Lucky Bald win lode. The Iowa Company hold
ing an adverse claim commenced suit thereon,
in April, 1876, by filing claim in the First
District Court Of Nevada and causing q sum.
mons to be issued. 1t was shown, however
that as late as May oath, 1875. service had been
perfected on the defendant, and that no further
steps had been taken by the plaintiff in tho
prosecution of the said suit. The General Land
Office, on this state Of facts, decided last
October that the Iowa Company had waived its
adverse claims by a failure to prosecute said
suit with reasonable diligence, and that the
Bonanza Company was, therefore, entitled to
receive patent as soon as the ordinary require
ments of the mining law should be complied
with. Sc retlry Schurz, in reviewing this
dec sion, says: Section 1896 Of the Revised
Statues provides in plain terms that failure
on the part of an adverse claimant to prosecute
his suit to judgment, with reasonable diligence,
| shall be a waiver OF his claim, but it does not
provide either in terms or by necessary implica.
tion that the General Land Office shall decide
what constitutes reasonable diligence while
suit is pending in Court. The object of this
law clearly was to require parties claiming an
adverse interest in land included in application
for patent to try the right Of possession, and
have the controversy determined by the State
| Courts before the issuance Of patent. The
question of Offence in prosecution Of pend
ing suit is as much question for determination
! of the courts as any other question of law or
| fact which may arise in the case, and which,
after the court has argued Jurisdiction, should
be left for its determination. The Secretary
points out that otherwise the General Land
Office might hold that reasonable diligence had
| not been exercised and issue the patent while
the court might give jud ,ment for the adver.e
claimant, thereby producing conflict, au hor-
ity and confusion OF titles, and as conseque
further litigation, etc. He therefore, says: IT
am of the opinion that the proper practice In
in his opinion, suit is not prosecuted with
reasonable diligence, to move the court to dis.
miss the case for want Of prosecution, and If the
motion is granted for this cause the judgment
| to be certified to at the General Land Otice
| when the patent can DO issued with ut conflict
with jurisdiction of courts or rights Of parties
In interest.
| LONDON, July s.
dispatch from Cape Town, dated June 18th,
says the court of inquiry had convened for the
| purpose Of examining into the conduct OF Lieut..
Curry, in command of the scouting party to
which the Prince Imperial was attached Al the
time o: his DEATH The friends Of the Lieuten.
ant did not understand the position in which he
stood towards the Prince, and were not aware
that he was expected to exercise any special
guardianship over his person. The court, how.
ever, goes on to censure him for proceeding
upon his Reconnaissance without o sufficient
escort, and for hating and dismounting or
dangerous ground-acts which betrayed
deplor able want of military prudence; and thu
court regrets that no attempt was made b,
Lieutenant Curry to rally his escort aud con
front the enemy. After the court Of inquiry.
court-martial was organized to try the Lieuten
ant. He sets up In his own defense that he wa
not in charge Of the party when the Prince Wa
killed, and the evidence thus far submitted
somewhat clears him of cowsrdice.
|