The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-02-05
co BACK TO BUTTE.
Judge Hanford Remands the Blue
Bird Cases to tho District
Court
The United States Circuit Court
Has No Jurisdiction In
the Matter.
Both Parties lave Patents to Mining
Ground, but Differ ~ to Owner
ship OF a Vein.

The merits in tho controversy over the
Blue Bird mining claims in which over g.
100000 are involved, have not been reached
yet, although the parties to the actions have
been in court for some time. Judge Han
ford rendered decisions in the United
States circuit court in the four cases yester-
terday %remanding them to the state dis
trict court Of Silver Bow county. James
A. Murray, OF Butte, who has two cases
against the Blue Bird company, has a
United States patent for mining ground adj
joining the Blue Bird property. He alleges
that the company has by means Of under
ground workings penetrated the country
rock on his ground from a shaft sunk from
the surface within the boundary lines OF
the ground to which the company has a pat
emit. And that by 80 doing the company
has dispossessed, Murray Of his vein. He
also alleges that the company justilies the
custer by asserting that the vein, or min
eral deposit. is in fact the Blue Bird vein or
lode which has its apex within the surface
limits of its W ground. 1t it SO situated
and extends SO as to be intersected
by one of the end lines drawn down verti-
cally, and by its dip the lead de- arts from
q Auo " RGAAA &SNAbo 49,
as to extend over the vertical lines dividing
tho claims of Murray and the Blue
Bird. Murray denies that this vein belongs
to the Blue Bird company. The company
also has two suits against Murray growing
out oil, the same matter.
In his opinion ~remanding the cases to the
district court Judge Hartford in one case
against Murray says: "Ihe question 10
whether this case ID one arising under the
constitution and laws Of the United States,
and whether considering its previous his
tory it is a Ease of which this court can
take jurisdiction. / am constrained to de-
eide that the court is without jurisdiction,
which is in my opinion the only court hav-
ing at tho present time power to take cog
nizance of it. I do so without considering
the subject of the controversy. The case
was commenced in September 1883, in the
district court Of the territory. and
court. After the state government had be-
come operative the defendant made An
application to the district court of the Sec
ond judicial district for relief from the
binding obligation of a restraining order
granted by the territorial court. From that
order the company appealed to the supreme
court of the state. The defendant appeared
in the supreme court and moved to dismiss
the appeal, not on the ground that the dis
trict court had not acquired jurisdiction Of
the case in due course as the successor OF
the territorial court, but solely on the
ground that the supreme court had no
jurisdiction of the appeal of the case; that
the order sought to be appealed from was
not appealable. The motion to dismiss
was denied, and the supreme court con-
firmed the order" Then the case was
transferred to the United States court.
The cases of Murray against the Blue
Bird mine we're commenced originally in
the United States court. The demurrers in
them we're overruled yesterday, and the
cases also remanded to the Silver Bow
court to conform with the views expressed
in the case of the Blue Bird against Muir
raw.