New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-24
filming.

filming.
ubhed in western Land owner December 1874 page 1885,
r. hoTeyeT SprOtes aOd agans1 given survey yen
should in az gage the RS m a b nee Seen ed w
you this ONCE that s1rn action may Te bbIt
The fcts in the case as they appear from the enclosed
E,seFn LSdS MRnS aSro tGs O nd
& ooaon nOrheasLerl Of date August 20, 1875 ana Ap
The Henrietta Mining claim Lot No 90 claimed Sy M
1872 aggF9ys Nay 9, IS7 Ss Ths S sass
this Ter9ry n1d d fhSTsiGe inc maps anu
b no MGn1or Lode Lot No u.s. shaughneSsy claimant
was located May O. 1878, recorded June q ISIs sur
The starr Gazer mining Ill p shaqghnosy
gust 80 s7ai rscGrJcd August 81, 1878 surveyed No.
vem bs E1 s n G no sRaushnessv claimant
located and recorded Jnns lS Ss surveyed November
The Rc6ecca Mining claim Lot iG Eudora shaugs
1873 surveyed, January 1885, and approved February T.
Rcso mining claims and cOnhicted with by
w Union TUNNEL Lode No. ]. Lot No. 1873
Union Tunnel Lode No p LOSNO. 122.
oceident Lode. Lot No ~. oo
QTe mining GAIN @ NS iI na these claims are based
upon the Uuion Tunnel right surveyed on January
and 2 1850 In The notices o. Set ndn q nD % ae
S but the Ps oS OF doe s Ooa0n '0
transnung this caso would RESPECTFULLY state tnat
nms eTef deal Of the time OF this ONCE also the
instructions OF General Land ONCE on this subject leave
Tespect1V refer to the following nsrucOnS and ask for
instructions Of Of mining claims of date
November 8, 1874 COpps Western Land owner VOL l.
reference to the first question would state that after
application has been made for patent fora given mining
cla Is virtually withdrawn from MARKET pend
Ing the na disposition OF the and survey as the ha
The same tract application has been
further instructions Of the Ion co@% q, oST,S6 Of
April % 1877 (COppS Land owner June 81 page Bob con-
An application for patent withdraw rho lands therein
ton is Withdrawn or ieectedh .-.-,..
II under these an Nn r Pa S spo
,t IN @ c"rionIv iibiraSys eyrv mart OF that
si9n o. ne T AMI no c6nAti4g su Use.
qucn should receive the approval OF the surveyor
This logical conclusion Tho closing sentences; how:
last cited instructions. seem to have erent
fhe field notes survey should show that
they embrace the premises ns those described y sucn
p6r survey, The number aud name OF The can9nts
shown accordance with Instructions in my letter Of Novem
The question seems 70 be: Have subsequent surveys and
9s S5 5T 9@g 5pbe r SS has B ae and
which were herefrs withdrawn from market under the
And further in 6c above case apprars that all the
ana for rhS ocoidcS is b, patent eaimed
5,ppg cr e t %' P''' '' uu
The other question then be cons dere by the
whether TIE whole ground clemed taken previously
or whether a part Of such uriace ground Is reo
Respectfully s5D% gRiHEaAox.
Utah Territory.
Thisrepor ough satisfied ay ordinary miner but
II seems did not satisfy the people They hal pro
located the Great Eastern claim, running at nearly
r ANGLES with the Ontario When they
the ontario ledge extended. not into the Last
Chance the Banner grounds as they had expected they
m1yrd stakes 0cahnR the boundaries Of the Great East
to the ground covered by the Henrietta
claim endcavord hold The vein by this subsequent To-
At this cry time working the Hcnric'ta claim
had mn tos.rssion Of it then as commenced
mir Ti,nfq
the United states Dsrc; Court before tie Hon
John A. Hunter Justice who Ap 20, lSso gave
AZ opinion. Of whch the following Is copy:
coH TsEFl' 81 s 81 ri nnae.|.'
In tho District Court, Third JnGicia district
Joseph D. Lewis plaintiffs, -
Robert C. Chambers; Iatrlct Kcgw9. Peter
Gonr, on ,h 2d @3y avg MITG a. ~ ~ nj
n said rause havng been mn 3" In writing
H., 1T NJ RI ori aiiuderi and lrcreegi that 1t INC com
' no Gamer og9G. only 10 .n The g'r "a int
Of itc iolorIf Ersmi,rs nina 91 r mining
ycyc ard c4mol by toe .anI, and me.nding also paft
t;ra, Ea-rru rinne claim surv,yci and claimed ~ Tho
i: a. 49, py Inc NJ md IaIfa mimi ris1 '' seycntV
raa e'am nttHmt hhl sIyr ci Dy b nn. H9a' , Mn,b
Nuiug D-rcl north ~ ~ casi loisa2loo feet
@ ard 5l S G lux PS et W The "S al
f o 55 na' vest thirteen He" saaGl,a claim aai
nine aud me- 49, req do' nr4t' ,E P"Te
south 81 81 cnst twenty two AMI go f,ct G2roli
H. nee ipIi i a. e9st har aid twenty AMI
Of siN and 500 srrrs situate IN sail tntah Mining lS
virus iadet nd idse, Of quart or hrF s IN P@cc gra9s
1r Tr,ni.c5 iit no rari q ic ooycscTi6ci prem
o'niant Eor arc tcrnlanis en lrei 20 The pos
And ia urirr adudgei ana ordered pailss
dss7oI% u,'S SisnoD ' joaS A. iUSTEI Judge Gum
Tie eject Of Til, decision is that the Ontario people are
busted all rights they claim hold by Of the
location. Aicr this decision they commenced
aiud under the subsequent locations which
thcy had male the Monitor star GaEer Eudora and
Ecbccci CLAIMS 40 knows better than the Ontario
people brought without any foundation
IN Justice their language for other pur
roc tlan to wear out" aud TO force ulprO
mise We shall whether they accomplish their object
showing TIM Company, for past eight
nine month"; hal been taking The with which they
paying their stockholders from the which
Outcrop In the claims owned by myself aud wife
comm, need against the Ontario damngrsa at
900 and praying for inunct them
further espias u?On property which they did Tho
following copy Of the compliant. ne In the United
stat psrt for the Thrl Judicial District Of Utah
Which the ontario people Will have to and dei2nd
Territory oil Utah.
In The District Cour for the Third Judicial District Of Utah
Michael shausnucssy aud EudOra Shapehnssy,l
Robert { Gha@GG dnS George nr" aud the 9ntsnO
pa ntlas comUIdn and aege That The plaintiffs are
tt g, Tain nc and mining Ella IA situate in thu Wintah Mln
lue District summit County Utah Territory. called and
describe with magnetic vatiOu Of lGo 80 east, follows
tov Commencing NJ point m the north ry boundary line
'd AMI me c n"r1 Gym v1 All YSy ed