Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-02-03
THE La PLATA CASE DECIDED.
An Interesting Opinion By Tho Re.
cei'er aud Registrar Of the Local
Land Office.

The registrar and receiver Of the
Land ofiice in this city have rendered
their opinion IN the In Plata contest
case, the hearing Of which was pro.
longcd one. IL IL as follows.
In tho matter OF the application for
mineral patent for the Sun Il an Lsde
claim, lot No. 8s, Paradise mining
district, Cache county, Utah, aud for
the Consolidated Mountain BOY and
Loreite Loie claims, lot No. 80, In the
same mining di.trlc, aud county, both
applications iied January li.h, 1902.
Also IN regard to the Rrac,er VI tue
land la sec.ion No. IL, township s
norm Of range = east.
On January IAN, 1899, Fred W.
Thackwtll, John +. Rich, John Y.
Ricn, w. II. Bo0lhv, Jr., and willis
HI. BOothe, 81, aut Ala Collect. filed
application for mineral pelent Tor the
sun Rise Lode mining CLAIM, lot No.
10, P"ra ii-o mining district, Cache
county, Utah.
On tue same date William NJ. Curtis,
GeoTge u. Norman, Joseph NJ. Cohen,
NJ. q. Harrington aud Fred w.
Fhackwoll, nled application Tor miner
nj patent for tie Consolidated Noun
talu Boy anu lore 10 Lode mining
claims, lot NJ. 80, paradiee mining
district, Cache county.
These mining olaima being situated
upon section II, township y north Of
range east, which section In within
tue boundades Ofthe grant W the Gem
trm Pacific Railway company, and
which section had prior thereto been
selected by the said railway company
~ per their list No. ~, all pspoIa were
forwarded 10 the General Land Office,
with the request for instructions.
The hon. commissioner by letter AM
OF February 20, 1892, Instructed as FOL.
lows: "Should the mineral claimant,
however, thUn present to you his pc.
tition under oath AMI duly corr0bor-
ated, alleging that the land embraced
within ais mineral application Is vaiu-
able mineral land, aud more valuable
for mineral than agricultural purposes,
you VIII forward ths petition 10 this
office" etc. Also, In the same letter,
"SoIity the mineral claimants VI tho
contents OF this letter.v
Such mineral claimants having been
notified VI the above, thvy,upOn haTch
IL, 1892, filed AN uilidavil alleging the
mineral character, not ouly Of the
ground included In the applications,
but Of the entire section (which all.
davit was corroborated by more than
sixty peTd0ns), and asked for a hearing
to establish the character NJ the ground.
THESE papers were Transmitted to the
hon. commissioner, who by letter "N'
OF April S, 1882, directed this office to
order hearing, "t0 determine the
character, mineral or non.miueral, OF
each smallest legal subdivision Ia said
section"
Upon receipt OF the last above.nam
letter all parties In intsrest were mott.
lied anu the hearing set for June 8,
1892, on which date the case was called
aud, for various reasons, continued
from time TO time until September 10,
1902, when II WAS again called, anU,
with one or two short intermissions,
was ON trial until November 20, 1892,
ON which date 1. was submitted.
DECISION OF THE REGISTER AND RE.
CEivER.
A very careful reading OF all the
testimony IN this case and cglmlna.
lion OF the exhibits introduced, con.
viBces Us that the east half OF the
section and the east halt OF the north.
west quarter OF the section IL essen.
tally mineral land. The testimony,
Conflicting Gs IL 10, IL certainly In
pfepunderance to the effect that this
portion OF the section ID almost worth
less for ordinary agricultural purposes.
The evidence Ia aleo clear that very
q. .Ia.. -
was done on this part OF the section,
watch certainly resulted In the dis
covery, production aud sale OF ore.
IL isaiso In evidence that further
work, production anu sale OF ore might
have been made Ind II not been
lor the Intervention OF the Injunction
suit instituted In the Fourth judicial
district court Of Utah.
IL Is held by tho hon. secretary in
Casey ct al. Va. Northern Pacific, L..
ID. 10, page %, that "land is mineral
in character, ant as such excepted
from the grant TO this company, where
the developments aud Its results display
such promise that prudent and res-
sonable man would be justified In
expending money and labor In leglti.
mate ining operations"
We are OF the opinion that this testi-
nony Is strongly Conclusive that
reasonable and prudent men have
expended time and money on this
portion OF the section; that such ex.
penditures were induced by tue results
displayed from such development
work, and that this was done In the
ACE Of dispute as TO title anu iDjuuo-
tiop proceedings.
Our decision is that the east half OF
the section and the east one.hsli OF the
northwest quarter OF the section should
he aggregated from the grant TO the
railroad company and declared mineral
land. Also, That the application for
the ground embraced Ia tho Sun Rise
lot No. 3s and the Consolidated Noun.
tain Boy anI Lorette, lot No. 30, being
ailhin the limits OF the ground so seq.
regatei, should be received anu made
OF record.
We further decide that the testimony
given In regard to the west Oue.half Of
the northwest quarter and the south.
west quarter vi the section IL not sufli-
Client to warrant recommendation
a..