The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-03-22
THE LAW AS TO POSTING,
Decision From the General Land
once Of Importance to Mining
Men and Companies
The Property Involved I! Situated
In Silver Bow County and
Is Very Valuabls.
Testimony OF One Man who Saw Notlo'
More Valuable Than That OF Many
Who DID Not.

The Helena land ofiss IL In receipt Of a
ruling from Commissioners LsmorsauE. Of
she general land Office In the contest case
of Thomas Ferguson % al W. hacnus
Hanson ct a.. involving application for
patent for abe Priscilla, Gsoreiana and Dor
cas- lode claims in Silver Bow eounty. The
Helena Office decided in favor Of eentsstees
on al points Involved exesgt one; that one
vas that the plat and notice OF application
for patent we're not rosted in conspicuous
places on the locations and that oontsstess
should be required 80 again give NOTES by
posting and publication. The commits
sioner. however. holds that the contestants
failed to sustain this allegation by pre-
pondsranee Of evidence. The ruling OF the
commissioners is as follows
From ths record in the above entitled
matter 10 appears that on New. 3. 1899. the
eontsstsss herein hlsd In your Office an az
plication for patent for ths mining losa-
tiona named. Publication appears 90 have
been made IN the semi weekly lnter-houn
tain, ths Gfst insertion Nov. 9. 1892 aad
the last Jan. s. 1898. On Jan. i3 1893, Sr
after the sxpil alton Of the STATUTORY period
for fling adverse claims. the contestsnts
herein fled a rotsst which you held to DO
insufaeisns as the basis of hearing, bat
additional sfidavits we're nled from time
20 time By said contestants until Feb. 5
1898. and on Feb. Il q hearing was ordered
and BY agreement OF the parties tho svi-
denee was taken before william ]. Lippin-
colt. commissioner. az Butte City. The
protest on which said hearing was held al
legged Quitting together the several
That claimants had made no legal
discovery OF mineral a. date OF location.
81 That the statutory $500 for iaprove-
ment had not been expended. 90 lhst
notice Of application for patent Was NOS
published in a newspaper Of eeaeral olroa-
latien. (5) That plat and notios OF appli-
oatlon for patent we're not posted In con
spicueus places on said locations.
The evidences vas taken by tbs commits
sioner above named, both parties being
present in person Rnd BY their alto neys,
and from the evidence 40 taken you de-
cidsd AUG. 20. 1903, in favor Of eentestsss
on all points save one. namely, the hfth,
and you decided that she allegation shat
plat and notices had not been Iosted In
conspicuous places on the claims has been
sustained, and that theTsfore, claimant
should be required 20 again give nstioe bT
poatins on the location and In youf ofhoe
and making new utilization in the Asws-
name From your decision the contestee
fed an appeal. Sept. 5. 1888, ana a. the
same tins filed evidence Of service Of notios
of said APPEAL on eontestsan. WIN
your letter dated Sept. % 1893. you for
uatded the record and evidence TO this Of
foe and said matter is before me on ap-
neal. 1 have carefully considered tue
record and evidence, aRd In eonneotlon
Herewith the arguments OF counsel. APP
reliant specifies foer sssIRnnsnts OF sfIor
in yoar decision, which l rsducs 20 ore.
namely: Error 20 hold that plAls and
notices wsfs net posted In conspicuous
places on said locations
As this is the only point in your decision
from which an appeal has been taken 10 10
unnecessary 20 noties the rest Of Y9uf dsea-
ion, except to say that your holding that
inaamush as contestants allowed the statu-
tary period for Cling adverse claim to eK-
pire that said CONTESTANT shsuld be treated
as prOtestants only, ana that therefore the
only sVidsnos 20 be considefea - sueh 40
affects the validity and regularity Of the
application Is correct, and as cur said de-
oision on all points NOS appealed from. ap-
pears to me 20 be In aceordRnos with ths
law and the evidence. the same to that OK
tent hereby affirmed.
This brinss me 70 the consideration OF
the issue raised by the hfth allegation 10
the protest. viz: Have oOntsstees sh0Wn q
oOmplianoe With section 2325, UAitsd Statss
mining law, In the matter OF posting on
the olaims2 IL must be horne in mind that
contestants having attacked ths spplica-
tiou, In support OF which the usual proof
Of posting had been hled. 10 dsVolves Spon
tLsn 10 show by ptePoHdsrsEee Of the
evidence that claimants have fAilsd TO COM
ply with the Law In this particular.
On this point / Am unable 10 concur In
your opinion, and. on the contrary, hold
that Contestants have failed to sustain this
allegation by prepondsrance OF the eVi-
dsnce. One man who svsaTs that plat and
notice were posted In q conspicuous place
on the claim in bis ptesenos. er that be say
the plat Eha notice while remaining 80
posted. 10 worth more than the evidences Of
many witnesses who simply swear that they
did not see such plat aud notice Ga
nsssss testify EfirmatIyely 10 ths osting.
some OF whom we're p esont at she time said
plAts and notices were posted, some saw
them while remaining posted, and others
we're present when the plGts and nOtioss
we're taken down. Al. OF these five wit
nsssss identified the plats and notices Of
fered IN evidence as the Same onea thsT saw
ostsd on the locations, aHd all substan-
italy agree as to she manner 81 posting and
the position on each location where plat
and notice we're posted.
According 20 mJ best judgment this AZ
nrmAtve showing OF compliance with the
contestants, although number Of wit
nesses swear that they did not ayo the plats
ana notices, nor any one OF them on the
locations. Your decision is accordingly
modified and said posting is held 10 be SUI
ncienf.
MsssTs. Langhorns and Resee, OF this
atty, o. Tsssnted ths contesise sad Haskell
anu knowles TIE contestants.