The Anaconda standard., 1895-06-05
The Moonlight Contest.

James A. Murray to-day filed his an
swer to the big suit brought against him
some time ago by w. w. Morris and
others growing out of a controversy
over the Moonlight addition to Butte.
in which the old conflict between placer
and quartz titles is involved. Mr.. Muir
ray relates that the placer was located
by himself, James O'Grady and Josiah
Burchett, jointly. and denies that Bur-
chett had no interest in the claim or
that he held the title as trustee or
agent for Murray. There never was
any deed executed concerning the
premises by Burchett or Murray. ex-
cept one made by Burchett to Murra y
in 1890. after the isusance of the Moon
light patent, and which, as defendant
AYERS, did not convey any good title.
Any agreement the defendant might
have had with Burchett concerning the
premises would have been void by vir-
tue of the statutes. Mr.. Murray denies
that the plaintiffs ever purchased from
him the property described in their
complaint, except that he conducted
the negotiations leading up to the pur-
chase, and the conveyance was made
by Burchett. The only purchaser was
the plaintiff Hamilton, and the deed
given him by Burchett was only for
such interest as Burchett had in the
premises. which was the placer claim.
The defendant denies that he agreed
with j. c. c. Thornton or any one else
to permit Thornton to apply for a pat
ent on the Moonlight, and after obtain
ing it he should convey an interest I'm
the lode to the defendant. He also de-
nies that there was any agency be-
tween himself and any one else con-
cerning the settlement or compromise
of the conflict between the placer and
the Moonlight lode, and AYERS that the
controversy arising out of the conflict
was carried into the land office of the
United States and that the land office
ordered a hearing, which was had, AMI
testimony taken as to the character of
the land. The land office thereupon de-
cided that the ground was not sub
ject to entry or location as placer but
only as a lode, and refused to allow the
premises to be patented as a placer
claim and cancelled the proceedings
had on behalf of the placer claim.
Thereafter the land office permitted
Thornton and Hedley to prosecute their
application for a patent. The contest
was prosecuted in good faith and with
out any colluSiOn or agreement and the
adverse decision of the land Office alone
prevented the prosecution of proceed
ings for the patenting of the placer.
The defendant admits that he after
wards acquired. from Thornton and his
successors, certain portions of the
Moonlight claim, but denies that il was
done in pursuance of any agreement
or understanding of any kind and
AYERS that he paid a very large and
valuable consideration for it. The de-
fondant went into possession of the
premises so purchased prior to the time
OF the purchases made by the plain
tiffs and denies that he ousted the
plaintiffs, or that they have been I'm
possession since the adverse decision
of the land office. The defendant also
denies that he even acquired all the
lands and premises alleged in the COM
plant, but says he acquired only an
interest from Thornton and afterwards
by partition he acquired full title to
some of the lots mentioned in the
plaintiffs complaint. but the whole Of
the lots was not included within the
described boundaries. Mr. Murray also
claims that the plaintiffs action Is
barred by the statute of limitations,
and he denies that he ever realized
S12 900 from the sale of lots on the dis
puted premises. or any other sum
greater than $4,000. and denies that he
ever held the property in trust for the
plaintiffs. and AYERS that a number of
the lots were never exclusively owned
by him. but by him and his co-owners
and were sold by him and then before
any partition was made between them.
William Scallon is Mr.. Murray's attor-
uaN.