The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-01-11
Law FOR LAYMEN.
The Metcalf Mining Decision Put
Into English As She IS
Spoke"
Concerning Locations for the III
formation Of Frospeo.ors
and Miners.
No Ruling That . Claim In Jefferson
Could Re Recorded In Lewis
and Clarke.

The decision OF the supreme court in tn
Prescott mining case has CAUSED some com
ment among mining men. The views @
several AZ given in yesterdays INDEpENDEN
indicate that there doesnot seem to be a col
rect understanding Of just what the court di
decide. It was for the purpose Of getting
statement OF The law in everyday Englisl
that a reporter called yesterday on Judg
Dewitt, who delivered the opinion.
Eyes, / noticed in THE INDEPENDENT thil
morning the observations as to the com
ments made, ms it was stated by mining
men. upon the Prescott vs.. Metcalf case
said the Judge. E.
1.-THE decision seems to be considered
somewhat revolutionary"
IF the decision had been anything like
what the comments seemed to indicate
should say that it was revolutionary. The
decision, as The INDEPENDENT recites md
illustrates it, is that = mining claim actual
" situated in Jefferson county may be re-
corded in Lewis and Clarke county. or vice
versa"
"Was not that what the court held?"
w., 1.-The b COZ court t. CAM, meme; no nearer % sn holding u sh a.
Koch lymph. II we had taken the view that
you describe, ] should say that some men
might be very emphatic III saying that it
was not q proper decision Why, look at
the statute, in the first place"
The judge here referred to Sec. 1477. gen.
eral laws, a part of which is as follows:
ANY person or persons who shall hereafter
discover any mining claim y shall
make and file for record in the Office of the
recorder of the county in which said dis
covory or location il made a declaratory
statement, ETC."
Continuing, Judge Dewitt said, If you
will notice the opinion in Prescott v. Met
calf, you will observe that the court ex-
pressly upheld that statute"
How did the misapprehension arise?"
II do not know, unless some n has
been joking the reporter. That l am not
wrong in believing that the opinion is alb
, q a . y ol lear ; let me ,s ssfs' st,aa to the e Ian an
following, in the opinion, which does not
seem ambiguous:
1.-The Crucible claim was situated in JEFF
ferson county. It's notice of location was
recorded in Jefferson county. Its location
description ame corner No. 4 of survey
800. which corner defendant alleges lies
wholly within Jefferson county; and further
alleges that the described courses and dis
tances, when run by reference to this sur
vey, corner No. 4, locate the claim wholly in
Jefferson county. 1t is not for the court to
say. from an inspection Of the location mo-
tice, whether or not this survey corner was
q permanent monument. That is n matter
3I7. affirmed in O'Donnell vs.. Glenn. 8
Mont. 24S."
II know that it is not always easy for a
reporter to get the exact point of a legal de-
cision. But this one was simple. The
claim, that is the premises, were actually
situated in Jefferson county. The notice Of
location was recorded in Jefferson county,
the county in which the claim was. The
description in the notice referred to a cor
ner No. 4, of survey No. 800. The parties
desired to prove that that corner was a per-
manent monument and vas in Jefferson
county, and that by referring to that
permanent monument, any n must
where it was recorded. Thu court held that
the party had the right to undertake to
prove that this corner was d permanent
monument and was in Jefferson county.
The court can not tell from looking at a
written description, whether an object
described Msn1 auoh is p le1s ~. m9nu u
but that is a subject for proof. The
doctrine has long been held in the state,
and the present case does not disturb it.
In this Prescott va. Metcalf case the court
simply holds that this question of perma-
nent monument is n tor proof. Whether
the party fails in his proof is a question to
coiAo UP oitcI bAo cHoIb - LHdue, IL WIS
not before the court in this case.
with a description that was susceptible
Of proving the claim to be in Jefferson
county, with the claim actually in Jetfer-
son county and with the record filed in JEFF.
ferson county, it was held that the errone-
Gus statement that the premises were in
Lewis and Clarke was harmless surplusage,
it not being required by law that the notice
shall name the county,"
The judge added: You may publish the
effect Of what / have said to you, if you de
sire. The statement in Saturday morning.
paper Was so ridiculously wrong that il
would not mislead the lawyers. who have
some faith in the partial sanity of tn,
court, but it might prove mischievous il
read by %prospectors and miners, and fol
their sakes l have made these remarks to
you." FL.