The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-04-13

heard that the protest had been dis
missed. but were ignorant of the fact
that the patent had been delivered. and
filed an appeal with the secretary of
the interior. The appeal was dismissed
for the reason that the patent had been
issued and the right of appeal thereby
| taken away, but when the secretary
| discovered by what means the patent
had been issued he demanded that
| Commissioner Stone recall II for can
| collation..
The notice was dispatched to the
Helena Office, but the patent had been
sent direct to Marsh and Cannon
through Commissioner Stone and on
March p, 1898. IL was filed for record
with the county clerk and recorder of
| Silver Bow county. The government
/ claims that the patent was irregularly
! issued and in contravention of the
| rules and regulations of the interior
department, and that proceedings were
| had under the express directions of
Commissioner Stone and at the request
of the defendants, attorneys who were
present, urging and soliciting until they
got the patent. The patent was not
| transmitted in the usual way to the
local land office at Helena for delivery
upon the surrender of the duplicate re-
ceipts as required by the rules of the
department, but was delivered by the
special order and direction of the COM
missioner and was carried to his desk
by the attorney for the defendants, the
commissioner having informed the
mineral division to prepare the patent
and he would deliver IL himself that
same night, Feb. 13, 1893, and appar-
emily in collision with the defendants
for the purpose of cutting off Johns
from making any further contest.
The defendants answer denies all the
allegations of fraud and collision and
alleges that as to the irregularity they
have not sufficient information upon
which to form a belief and therefore
deny 1t. They also repeat in their an
swer the amount of improvements they
had made on the ground, including the
$500 blacksmith shop, and deny that the
excavations were old bitches made by
one Ornstein for agricultural purposes.
The work done by Ornstein became the
work of the defendants by reason of a
certain agreement between them and by
which the improvements were to be
used in procuring a patent
AS to the deputy mineral surveyors
statement that the shafts" were old
prospect holes, the defendants didn't
know. 1t is denied that the Parrot
company built the dam and reser-
voir' in 1885, and denies that Johns did
not have notice that his final protest
was dismissed before the patent was is
sued. The answer alleges that in ad-
ulIlOn 10 the improvements placed on
the land by Ornstein and the defend
ants. that the. Parrot company made
large and extensive improvements on
the ground, while the company was
claiming title under the defendants,
and II was agreed between them that
such improvements should be used for
the purpose of showing that the prop
er amount of improvements or labor
had been done upon the premises for
the obtaining of a patent. At the time
of making the Improvements the Par
rot company was acting in conjunction
with the defendants and was in posses
sion and claiming that portion of the
claim upon which the improvements
were made, under and in subordination |
to the title of the defendants. 1t is
also alleged that a deputy mineral sur
veyor examined the work and estima-
ted its value at s1,575. The defendants
also had Improvements on the ground
known as the Noyes & Upton ditch,
worth fully $780, and which they had
forgotten to mention before
After procuring the patent and be- |
fore any notice that the government
claimed IL to be fraudulent, says the |
answer, each of the defendants con-
veyed the property to Charles S. War |
rem and Charles w. Cannon and the |
latter have since sold it to other par
ties and the defendants are therefore |
cancellation Of the patent.
The attorneys representing Enoch |
Johns in Washington have obtained |
from the commissioner of the land Of |
fee and from the interior department |
complete record of the case, showing |
that Johns attorneys were not notified |
when the patent was issued. The act
ing chief Of division gave it as his opin-
ion that Johns protest was a strong |
one and should have been considered |
on its merits and would have justified
hearing, but Commissioner Stone dis
missed IL in these words: "A careful |
consideration of the protest and all the
circumstances leads to the impression
that this last proceeding is not entered
In good faith, but for the purpose of de-
lay, and to harraSs and vex claimants,
which unfortunately is not especially
provided against by the rules of prac-
tice. In view of the litigation already
had at the instance of protestant and
the entry being regular in all respects,
i am of the opinion that the time has
come when litigation of this character
should cease, and as my predecessor
held in the case of Robert NJ. Cobban
ct al. March 3, 1892, this case will pro-
coed in its regular order without fur
Their interruption"
The chief of division disagreed with
the commissioner and said the cases of
Johns and Cobban were different in
several particulars. A number Of di-
vision clerks who had something TO do
with the case made statements of their
knowledge of it. One of them stated
the commissioner read the protest of
Johns and his affidavits and declared
they were merely cumulative and in
tended for delay. The patent was or
dered delivered to Attorney Law for
the defendants, but when the attorney
was leaving the room he was called
back by the commissioner who said:
give me the patent. l am going to see
Carter tonight and will give IL TO
him." Finally Mr. Stone said: mo;
give IL to Law, and tell Law TO bring
IL in TO me-" Another official of the
said the proceedings
were very irregular and
one of the clerks refused to be a party
hn, 4.