Sacramento daily record-union., 1882-01-20

German compauy-one of them was named
Myers-locsted twenty-four claims on the
east, each 100 feet on the ravine by 200
feet back, in two tiers. Fred Borne located
on the northeast corner Of the Indiana Hill
c!alm-plat as now made-ard adjoining
witness claim and that of the German COM
pany. Richard Mills located claim there
also, as witness judged by his notice Wit.
ness Indicated where he saw men working, in
what Is now the Indiana Hill claim, when he
first came there.
Recess.
At the afternoon session witness Hodge re-
sumed, and detailed and pointed out yarious
locations made of his knowledge on the ground
in question, and detailed what work had been
done on the claims in 1923, and what evil
deuces of previous locations he saw on the
mining ground in question. The purpose of
this testimony was to show tine records being
lost) succession of interest and occupancy and
use under title OF the grounds Of the defend
ant as far back as 1928, and to trace the I'll
tie of defendant back to original locations
about that date Witness sold out his claim
to Prindle in 1859. and up to that date had
been continuously working the claim, when
he had water, and that depended on the
season of rainfall, etc. Ga cross-examioation
Ito Mr. Hart), the witness at much length,
and by aid OF maps and diagrams, explained
the locations of the claims, etc. 1t developed
that the claim, though worked till SO, was
not worked until Sc, and that the time in
which the claim was not worked was because
no room could be had fer the tailings.
Osmyn Hardness sworn Ito Mr.. Byrne) {:
Worked on the Indiana Hill ditch in 1852.
The Indiana Hill district was formed in 1852.
Became an owner in the ditch in July, 1852.
1t carried water for mining on Indiana Hill.
d.. In,-G G1E ~ 1,Sol& na
cember 81. 1854. Know the grounds occupied
by the defendant, and known as the Indiana
Hill claim. The first work l saw was done
at the lower end of the ravine, in 1S63-the
spring. Saw Brown 4 Minors work there
With reference to the Warren claim, they
didn't get up very far that spriug was not
there in the fall of 1858 or 1854. In 1858
Brown & Minors had not, when witness saw
them, got up to the Warren claim. Was there
in the fall of 1855 again, and witness saw
considerable advance had been made Hodge
l. Judd were then working ap considerable
distance on the ground held now by the plain
tin. a man named Bourne was at work on
part of the claim, too, at that time. Bourne
located or had possession of part of it, as
also Hodge and Judd. Hodge worked on q
claim there north of the south line of the
claim now known az the Indiana Hill. Saw
a man named Priudle there In 1859 on the
ground. Sold water to all these men. Prin-
die sold to -. That ground has been
worked after the water got in, more or less
every season. Witness described a claim he
had in that section, and the cost and work
there on the same, He described .he CASTLE
claim and the interest he bought in same in
1854, and the first work done in the Gamer
claim was in 1854 Witness ran the Hark.
ness claim up to 1874. On cross examination
NJ TO tbap of ALa
claims in evidence. He said the first work
he ever saw done within the present lines of
the claims of the defendant was as early as
1854, when Bourne worked there. Witnesses
claim that he bought in 1854 was not used
between the time he quit work on it and
when he sold it to Zadok Gamer Think
the Indiana Hill district was formed in 1855
J. L. Gould recalled, desired to say in cor
rection that three of the claims of the defend
ant are not patented, instead of two as he
first stated by lapse of memory.
Mr.. Byrne with witness still on the stand)
here began to offer documentary evidences,
and offered to prove by witness that the pat.
ents heretofore introduced embrace in fact
the grounds of the company defendant, as the
patents do not describe the grounds by name,
but give metes and bounds. Witness there
upon located and named the claims and inter-
ests Of the defendant, referring to the map of
the district, and the prosecution admitted
that such claims are embraced in the United
States patent to the defendant. Several deeds
and documents in the chain Of title of defend
ant were then introduced by defendant
deemed necessary to establish the chain of
title of defendant to its mining prop
erty. There documents consist of deeds,
letters of administration. patents, etc, all
tending to prove that the title of the prop
erty of defendant relates back to 1854, and
that defendlnt acquired title in 1870. Prose-
cution consented to the introduction of the
abstract of title, and the certified copies of
deeds therein described and referred to were
deemed as parts OF the record and marked as
exhibits in the case. It was then admitted
that the defendant and its predecessors have
had possession and use of the ditch property
of the defendant, and that tie possession con-
forms to the recitals of the deeds in the lire
of title. Defendant then introduced deeds
relative to the Indiana Hill claim to show
title descending to defendant.
At this point the defendant rested its case.
Attorney General Hart said he had but few
witnesses to introduce in rebuttal He had
tslegraphed for General Bidwell and Mr..
Boggs, and would need them as witnesses.
He thought that a very few days would now
conclude the case.
Court adjourned until $50 A. NJ. oday.
.u-=z--uzz.--n=.-szzzzzzs