Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-07-29
JUDGE RIvEs, DECISION.
A Calm and Dispassionate View OF
The Remarkable Document.

-
Ia Remarkable Document.
In reading over carefully the decision
filed by the Judge on the 9th inst, in the
case of Rose ct al. va. The Richmond Min
ing Company Of Nevada, which has now
passed into history, we feel it incumbent
on us to c~riticise in all fairness the find
ings, reasons and opinions Of the learned
Judge, and do SO in no spirit Of hostility
to him, or Of partisanship on either side.
We find in his opinion the following points,
well stated, as facts found by him
That Roses location was perfect.
That Roses occupation and possession
was perfect to date Of trial.
That Rose had done all the work re-
quired by law up to date of trial.
That Rose had fled his protest against
the application Of the Richmond Company
for a patent to his ledge, under the st.
George claim, in due time, and in proper
form as required by law.
That Rose had followed up this protest
in proper time by a suit in this Court, in
proper form as required by law.
That Rose had complied with every re-
quirment Of the law to enable him to re-
tain his claim az against the Richmond
Company, claiming under the st. George
location.
That Roses location OF 300 feet Of the
ledge covered its entire width, be 1t more
or less, from the foot wall to the hanging
wall.
That Rose had prosecuted his suit against
the Richmond Company for the ledge with
due diligence.
That there was no other conflicting
claimant for the ledge within the limits OF
the end lines Of his claim, except the Rich
mond Company, and that Rose was enti-
tied to the ledge within his end lines, ex-
cept that portion cut of from its southerly
or easterly end by the Tip Top location,
belonging to the Richmond Company.
That when the Richmond Company ap-
piled for a patent to the st. George claim,
that portion Of the ledge was withdrawn
from sale by the Government Of the United
States, as much SO I" as if it had been with
drawn by special act OF Congress-" and
being 80 Withdrawn that portion being in
dispute between Rose and the Richmond
Company could not be sold by the Gov
erment to either party, until the contro-
versy had been finally settled in this suit.
That while the ledge was SO withdrawn
from sale it could not be acquired in any
way by either party until litigation was
finally ended between Rose and the Rich
mond Company, but Notwithstanding this
absolute prohibition the Richmond Com
pany obtained wrongfully a patent for the
st. George claim, which included the Uncle
Sam location on the ledge.
That this patent so acquired by the
Richmond. Company was, in consequence
of the ledge being withdrawn from sale.
absolutely void and of no effect.
That, although the ledge was SO with
drawn from sale, ''as absolutely as il it
had been done by Act OF Congress" and
the Richmond Company could not acquire
patent to 1t under the name Of the st.
George claim, yet the Court held that the
Richmond Company could and did acquire
q valid patent to it under the name OF the
Victoria claim, although it was q junior
claim, and was for the same ledge upon
which the Victoria patent was procured by
the Richmond Company, while the ledge
was withdrawn from sale as absolutely 'as
IL it had been done by special act Of Con-
gress."
1t is well known that in q conflict for q
ledge in Court where one applies for q
patent for it (which withdraws it from sale)
and another party contests it, that the
ledge belongs to the one entitled to it by
final judgment, and that the protest to an
is within itself an application,
for the law does not require a protestant
in case he RECEIVERS judgment to file a new
for q patent, but may upon fl
ing in the Land Office the judgment roll
obtain a patent for the ledge.
Notwithstanding all the foregoing facts
the Judge rendered a peculiar and striking
decision which was to the effect that while
this ledge was absolutely withdrawn from
sale until the contest between Rose and the
Richmond Company was finally settled in
the Courts, and while from this reason the
Richmond Company could not acquire .
patent to it under the name Of st. George,
yet it could acquire a patent under the
name OF Victoria, although the latter was
q junior location and the patent for it was
for by the Richmond Company and
while the ledge was Withdrawn
from sale and the contest as to the right of
purchase was still pending between Rose
the Richmond Company.
The learned Judge gives as q reason for
this peculiar decision the fact that because
Rose did not protest against the Richmond
Victoria application, which was for the
same ledge, which he was then in litiga-
ton with the same claimant for, that he
his right to the ledge and the
Victoria patent took it from wall to wall.
In making this decision the Judge totally
the fact OF its being the same
and that it was then Withdrawn from
the market, and that Rose and Richmond
Company had applications pending for
it, and were in litigation. He also ignored
the fact that Rose was entitled to a patent
for this same ledge as against the Rich
mond Company, IL he maintained his
right OF possession in this action which
the Court in this same decision declares
to be undoubted.
If the Victoria claim is not for the same
as the Uncle Sam and st. George it
does not matter, and the Victoria patent
is undoubtedly valid for the surface. But
as the Judge has decided it was the same
ledge we are at a loss to determine how
the Victoria claim OF the Richmond Com
pany could. or can by any possible con-
struction Of the law acquire any right to
the ledge or any portion of it within the
limits Of that portion absolutely with
drawn from sale.
What has (under this decision) become
OF the st. George application and the Rose
protest in the Land Officer
II the st. George patent is void, then
the application for patent, protest and suit
must still be alive somewhere, for 1t cer-
tainly cannot be contended that the issu-
ance Of q void protest to a section of a
ledge in controversy can take away the
rights of the parties c~ontending the
ownership Of it, aud take it while 1t 10
absolutely withdrawn from sale. II .
stranger cannot take II how 10 ii possible
for either Rose or the Richmond Company
A. 4. 4a1 NH I-N.s~- a. .Asnr- AA-A-l
our understanding or comprehension.