The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-12
GRABBER WINS.
80 OF the Tacoma School
Section is Case.
uyoa OF MR.. M'BRlDE.
,.x r.eud Omss Assassang In she
o..bssy u chs ststs % >
ssxss Gold Fretsxt

-. Feb. Special local
~. ssserrx today received the deci-
!s. =, she commissioner OF the general
n 800 affIrsning the decision OF the
|Ss!.z< xnrers In the case OF the state OF
S1se1on against Mcbride, In favor
- utter.
- 4 ,suofest involves a valuable school
-. = Tacoma. which Is alleged by
i =. S.ssxs 10 BE- OK mineral character,
$40 -, sfsis assumption ne gained o.
Szs.s.kie decision IN November last
49, ~ register and receiver OF the
~ land Office.
r.. .S.rrfug to the specifications Of
fled by tbs appellant. the con-
~ says:
E There was no error In casting
80 trrs1e, of proof upon appellant. A
n .nrSicatson for land, duly received
sS = record, operates - seggregate
- applied for, and the burden OK
= upon whoever attacks 1t.
-; ,,erd-The letter OF instructions
lhc secretary TO the local land
z|zS-u axed the time within which
1900 regarding the mineral char
Sss!ssszsSsv a the land should be obtained.
p ii would have been improper TO
on,sidered evidence obtained from
Smnxsons made by the appellant at
dimes and under other circum-
kfra~-It was improper 70 consider
nridence Offered on the part OF the
nj obtained by tests made at
man the time Indicated by the
afnry OF the interior. Hence the
aenee OF r. d. Wilson. ]. w. Rigney.
nes3saps so1ne others. was improper
& 2cosideresi and viii be ignored.
kurth- The evidence offered for the
eose Of proving the claim was
800 rests ON the testimony of ]. NJ.
III, 10 the effect that Mcbride had
red with him 20 salt the claim.
= eyidence by Bloom was equareiy
1aled BIZ Mcbride, and must be ad-
fSf1ud a. not proven. The fact that it
4 ii the instance OF Mcbride that
4 foem agreed to do SO. under such CIR
6nces, would have no bearing or
66ndine BY itself, even were the agree
& - conceded. Further. II cannot be
diei that it b not at all unusual TO
= more than one kind or gold In the
i - mining location, 50 this fact
3 uees nothing.
NH The allegation of error In re-
51tnG to consider the evidence OF G..
eeahr4skie is not we'll taken. He
- called by the appellant to prove q
3 nye8smtion with another person In re-
Gou to salting claims. 1t would make
Inference what conversations were
n With any one Being strangers to
re record Mcbride could not be held
ereby.
xth Regarding the alleged error In
81 having considered separately each
eo<lon as TO the results obtained from
5 36A tests made. Is a point we'll taken
~ general principle. but as both
efttes 70 this case proceeded on the
eesumptson that the deposits In the re-
Npective locations approximate q uni
nrmtfT OF value. the action In not con-
S4Hfns results separately viii not at
1en th4s case.
s eeFenth-Ths specification that II was
Ssor TO have found the land IN con-
uNcsy. sF any portion of II, mineral
h eharacter. is treated at considerable
18th. the evidence OF a number OF
lnesses is reviewed. and the opinion
ncludes:
t1um n former decision Of the sesre-
~ Of the interar rs 10 the feasibility
nocuring water, the feasibility OF
aiming a dump and rsght-of-way,
~ other collateral matters. the con-
Nexonsr concludes that even IL the
Ssssage value OF the six locations made
! y but ! cents per cubic yard. the claim
~ be operated at a profit. which con-
eansacn renders the land mineral In
uararter Within the meaning of tbs
esa<ltte. The contestant has failed q
esscune the presumption attaching "a
sae mineral application, and the de-
eeapn Of The heal land officers OF No.
Nsnoer II last In favor OF Mcbride Ii
summed and the contest dismissed.