The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-01-09
TOHAvE ANOTHER CHANCE
Their Location Notice Wrong, but
They Should not Lose Their
Claim.
They May Now Offer to Provo
just Where the
Mine Ia.
Taxing judgment by Default Against
Wlitehead-Jn the District Court
some Lode Locations.

The supreme couft made a decision yes
in n mining case AZ pealed from
Jefferson county in which the whole mat
ter is put in n nutshell by the question
asked in the opinion. The claim in CON
~trovergy is in Jefferson county. The court
asked: Are the appellants to lose their
claim because they stated In their location
notice that the premises we're in Lewis and
Clarke county," On the trial Of the case
below the appellants sought to prove from
the body Of the notice that tho claim was
in Jefferson county but the lower court
held that II was incompetent because the
notice itself stated that the claim was in
Lewis and Clarke county. This was wrong
says the supreme court.
The action IL q contest between claimants
Of mining ground on the public domain of
the United States. Metcalf ct al, relied up
on their claims of the Ida May and Corbett
lodes. They were contested by Prescott ct
a., who are the appellants with their New
Brunswick and Crucible lodes. -Four
points were argued by counsel, and tho
facts upon which they are presented are:
The location notice Of the Crucible lode
states, among other things, that the lode is
situated in Vaughn's ~unorganized mining
district, Lewis and Clarke county, and the
discovery shaft is $50 feet from the west
end Of the claim. The exterior boundaries
of this location are distinctly marked by
posts or monuments at each corner Of the
claim, 30 that its boundaries can be readily
traced. As to this description the defend
ants plead that the corner of the said sur
vey referred to in the Crucible notice of To-
cation as being about a mile distant there
from, lies wholly within the said county of
Jefferson, is q fixed, definite and permanent
monument. and taking the notice OF loca-
ton, and starting at the initial point
named. from the calls OF the notice, one
would of necessity and without uncertainty,
find the claim in the county of Jefferson.
1t further appears that the notice Of loca-
ton was duly filed in the Office of the
county recorder of Jefferson county and not
of Lewis and Clarke.
The court below held that this location
notice was not competent. as not
entitled to record in Jefferson county,
by reason of the statement in the notice
| that the claim was situated in Lewis and
Clarke county, and also that the allegation
and proposed proof that the corner No.
shows the claim to be In Jefferson county,
was incompetent. This ia assigned as error.
The location notice of the New Brunswick
shows these facts: The notice is signed by
the locators. Then appears an unsigned
affidavit that G. X. Cole was one of the
~locators and claimants. The district court
held that this notice not being sworn to wae
not entitled to record and defendants could
not claim title Hereunder. This conclu-
sion, says the supreme court, must have
been reached by taking the face of the ati-
davit alone.
rcI,a -, p~ron von 81
1856. and recorded Feb. 5, 1886. The record
was more than twenty days after the loca-
ton. But it appears that between Jan. g
1885, and Feb. s, 1885, no person occupied,
possessed or end%eavored to assume to oc-
cupy or possess the claim or any part of il
other than the locators above named. Was
the record under these circumstances made
in time?
The Ida May location notice states that
the lode is situated i'll unorganiZed mining
district, Jefferson county, and the claim is
situated about one mile southeasterly from
the Peerless Jennie mine. The adjoining
claims are tho Corbett quartz claims on the
east
The Corbett location notice states that
that claim is situated i'll Frowner morgan
lied district, Jefferson county, and the nd
joining claim is the Leslie, on the north.
The point is made that these descriptions
are not by reference to some natural object
or permanent monument as will identify
the claim.
Judge Dewitt after stating the foregoing
facts discussed the points. st is not for
the court to say from an inspection of the
location notice whether or not this survey
corner was u permanent monument. This
is a matter for proof. If defendants had
been allowed to attempt to prove this. as
they had a right to do, and had succeeded,
they would have been in this position: they
would have shown where their claim
was by reference to a permanent monu-
that it was in Jefferson county, the county
in which they had properly made their rec
ord. Are they to lose their claim because
they stated in their notice that the premises
were in Lewis and Clarke county! The
statement of the county, in the notice, is
not required by law. nor does it appear that
it was required by any rules of miners on
sistent with the laws of the United States"
The court was of opinion that the view
of the district court as to the New Bruins
wick location notice was correct, and at
firmed that ruling.
ut is conceded by Metcalf ct nj. i'll their
brief that they claim no rights by virtue OF
the fact that their adversary claim. the
New Brunswick, was not recorded within
twenty days after discovery. That disposes
of this point"
"It must be held that in the location no
tees of the Ida May and Corbett claims tho
reference to adjoining claims is sufficient
to allow the notices to be introduced i'll evi
such adjoining claims are permanent mon
uments." The judgment was reversed anG
the cause remanded for further proceed.
inRs.
TAKING JUDGMENT.