Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-03-18

soon as they laid out the town, no mat ter who was in occupation of the lots, or how long they had been Tn occupation or how much improvements they had put on the lots
 After this section 23S7 of the United States statutes, which provides that this patent shall be issued to the Mayor in trust for the use and benefit of the oceu- pants thereof, according to their respec- tive interests, there IS another section. I do not remember the number as given in the statrtes, but 1t Is No. 302 ln tbjs little book entitled United States Land Laws which says: "Any Act of inc trustees not made in conformity to the regulations alluded to in section 2g4 that is, section 23Si.
 NIT. Berry-That Act refers to the Ter. ritorial Legislative Act, not &3S7.
 The Court-This section 23S7 which have read Is on the subject of entry Of the townsites by the town authorities ia trust for the occupants, and 1t IS the see tion which has been referrsd to aHd quoted by counsel. If thore fs any other section ! would like to see It.
 MT. Berry goes after U. ;. statute
 The Court after examining Well. | don't see any other section which prs- vides that this patent shall issue to the Mayor and corporate authorities in trust for the benefit of the occupants. according to their respective interests. The latter part of this section of course provides that the Territory shall pre. scribe regulations.
 Now there Is one case n Eighth Ne. vada, and l think one somewhere else. which decides that a deed not issued ia conformity with the United States stat utes-that Is to those who are the occu. pants aud entitled to deeds under this general law, Is absolutely void. As | view it from all these authorities, do not see any necessity for the decision of the court in Nevada. because 1 th.uz this Act provides that any act of ,rus. tee. that refers to every act. not uaGs in conformity to the regulations alluded to in section 294 in the Land Law winch IS the same as section 23S-, slall be void. And as l sand little while ago. if this statute In Arizona was valid the corporate authorities would issue deeds to the TOwnsIte company fOr5y- erv lot in the town, no matter wl. cc- cupied 1t, or how long they had been occupying or what improvement were upon 1t. My notion of such law e, that is. that 1t Is in conflict with every sense of justicc and reason and with th. general statute of the United State. and is therefore void do not tiiuk 1t needs any action of Congress Co affirm such a law as that. ! think this case
 will have to be declded outside Of tlat
 z h ftF
 of these various parties.
 In the Nlzina mining case IJ I> I4
 proof that the defendant was in pus-rs-
 sion of the land, the surface claimed .Hr
 this mine, before the townsIte company
 made their entry; that they bad what the
 law defines mine, built upon portions
 of 1t and exercised ownership over
 the whole of 1t at the time, before and
 after the 9th of April, 1880, when the
 entry was made, and my opinion IS that.
 as against the IOwnslte company, Or anybody else having no better right. and their rights are about equal uLtsr tue patent to start with, except the gu-s- tion of possession. they are entitled tu their surface ground as set out Iu tuclr answer tO this complaint.
 In the case of BaldrIge vs. Clark. the proof shows that the plaintiff went into possession ID the latter part of August | 1879, that the lot was vacant, and that he cut off the brush and erected tent or cabin on the lot and lived there until February or March, 1880, and that whiie he was absent at his place 6usIues, lu February or March, 1880. the defendant, | bis agents C- employees, took !Orc,b.r
 possession of the lot and moved the tent | Oy cabin off. and afterwards erected some | small buildings on the lot. In tins case I shall find that the plaintiff IS entitled to that lot ana that the Mayor issued the deed to the wrong party, and that plaintiff IS entitled to recover rentat tus | rate of S25 a mORth from March, lSo, | the time the possession was taken from l him.
 In the case of Clark vs. Mccoy, for ! three lots, the proof shows that Mccoy l took possession of them on March . | 1880, no one was ln possession and there were no improvements on them; tbathr
 went to the Mayer two or three different times and offered him money to pay for the lots, and the proof shows that the Mayor refused to make him any convey
 ance, and afterwards conveyed the prop
 erty tO the Townsite company. Ils
 was clearly disregard of the trust, m
 my judgment. repOsed in the Mayor, and
 in this case he issued the deed Co ibs
 wrong party, and the judgment Of tbs court in this case will be in favor o' Me Coy.
 In the case of Reilly vs. Clark, for iot
 9. block IS, the proof shows that Nr. Reilly went into possession in Septen-
 Der, 1880; the proof farther shows that Mr. Gray, as the agent of Nr. Clark, tosk
 possession of that long before that ume and built stone wall around 1t. or near
 iy around it. and otherwise improved the lot My judgment k m that ease that
 NIT. Clark is entitled to the possession and should have the deed for that lot.