The record-union., 1896-10-18
Two MORE LAND DECISIONS.
". E. Foster Of CalaYeraS Loses His
Contest.
A Placer County Pre-Emption Case
Goes In Favor of the Gen.
tral Pacific.

An interesting case recently brought
before the officers OF the local United
States Land Office from Calaveras is
that of Albert Lascy. protestant, against
William e. Foster, the decisions In
which have just been rendered. Re
ceiver Gardner finds that the entry
should not pass to patent without fur
ther investigation, and Register Fraser,
hndlng that the entry should pass to
patent
The matter involved the mineral entry
for the Blazing Star quartz mine,
lot 20 in section 2, township north,
range 13 east, NJ. D. NJ. The hearing
was ordered on the facts recorded as
follows:
William e. Foster filed a mineral ap-
plication for the Blazing Star mine
August IL, 1891, the publication of the
notice duly following. Lascy protested
against the acceptance of the mineral
application on account of erroneous
survey of the claim, and on December
~, 1871, filed an appeal from the order
accepting the mineral application. On
the same day LaScy filed an adverse
claim against the application and in
stituted suit.
In 1877 the claimant was required to
cause an amended survey of the claim
to be made which was done, and a plat
of the same filed November IL, 1893.
On January Ii, 1894, Lascy filed an
additional protest aginst the allowance
of entry on the application, and on
February 6, 1894, the claimant was al
lowed to make mineral entry for the
Blazing Star mine without formal ac-
ton ON Lascy's protest. The protest
alleged that the end lines of the claim,
as surveyed and entered, were not par
allel and that the claim includes ground
not covered by the location notice on
which the claim is based.
Receiver Gardner in summing up the
case, submitted that the protest was
corroborated by affidavit, and that the
second allegation was a charge of so
serious a nature that he was unwilling
that the entry should pass to patent
without further investigation, and con-
cluded, therefore, that the protestant
should be afforded an opportunity to
offer proof in support of his protest He
recommends that the protestant be al
lowed thirty days in which to apply for
notice Of hearing.
From careful examination of the
Testimony and records the Receiver
found that the allegations Of the pro
testant were substantially that the end
lines Of the claim were not parallel and
that the claim included ground not
covered by the location notice. and on
these grounds arrived at the conclusion
that the mineral entry made February
.. 1894, by William e. Foster for the
Blazing Star quartz mine should be
Cancelled.
Register Fraser, from his examination
or the history and records of the case
was compelled to disagree with the
nndings of the Receiver. The allega-
tons of the protestant covered two
points only; that the ends were not
parallel and that the claim embraced
land not covered by the location notice
He did not consider the first point well
taken. The end lines of the claim were
marked parallel on the plat. While the
original and the amended plats differed.
he was Of opinion that such a conflict
when survey was made as to render
1t susceptible of removal by relinquish-
ment would not invalidate the survey
nor be such a violation of a rule as to
make it necessary to reject the survey
or the entry
The Register did not agree with the
contention made by the protestant that
the relocation made in 1883, varying
from one made in 1872 for a mine of
the same name, must necessarily be
confined to exactly the same land.
The conclusions arrived at, therefore.
were to the effect that the conflict of
ha !, n
parallel within the meaning of the rule:
that the preponderance Of evidence
showed that the land embraced in the
official survey was identical with the
original claim, and should stand. and
III conclusion he recommended that the
contest be dismissed and the entry be
approved for patent
AN APPLICATION DENIED.
In the matter of Q. K. Underwood,
pre-emption applicant and contestant,
against the Central Pacific Railroad
Company, agricultural claimant and re-
spondent, Thomas Fraser, Register, and
Charles F. Gardner, Receiver of the
United States Land Office, have rem
dered a decision. denying the right of
contestant to make a pre-emption fill
ing on the tracts of Land in question.
The case involved lots 3, 6, Z, II, u.
16 and II of section ., township 16
north, range S east, M. D. NJ, which
tracts are situate in the rich mining
section about two miles east of Grass
Valley, and a like distance south Of Ne
vada City in Placer County.
The section i'm which the disputed ter
ritcry was situated was shown by the
records to be in the grant made TO the
1862, and was embraced in the order of
withdrawal issued in August of that
year. The map of definite location Of
the road opposite the tract was filed in
1868, and the township plat was filed
in the local office February 20, 1866. BY
survey of the township, the southern
and eastern portions were returned as
mineral in character.
On December 3, 1886. the railroad
company selected lots and Of the
section In dispute, per Sacramento list
No. II.
On May 4, 1868, within three months
after the filing of the township plat,
Philip B. Mock filed a pre-emption de-
cIaratory statement covering the tracts
i question, alleging settlement to have
been made September 10, 1858. On No
vember 10, 1870, Mock made pre-emp-
tion cash entry for the land, but subse-
quently abandoned his claim to por-
tions of it ON account of it's mineral
character, and in 1874 patent was is
sued to him for the remaining tracts.
Then on May Z, 1868, John G. Wilcox
filed his pre-emption declaratory state
ment for those portions of the section
atr ndoned by Mock, and certain other
sections, alleging settlements to have
hcen made thereon Nav 3 1852 and on