Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1898-04-27

H6 3~H A Q HV "a
 the time kcll undertook to mak,
 the locs'iOn on Janusry 2nd, 1882
 and that consequently the "Coppei
 Chief" claim being located in Oct
 ober, 1883, prior to the location o
 the Equator" in January, 1884
 made the Copper Chief" subsis..
 ing and existing mining claim from
 October 18th, 1883.
 The only pretense that the appel
 lants could make that they had
 been injured by the admission ol
 Schuerman as a party was, that
 which might result from the intro
 duction ol his amended location ol
 the Copper Chief" made on the
 3Ist of August, 1896. That amend cd location notIce did not inaugur- ate any new rights. It had relation to the original location made Oct ober 18th, lSS3-ln the amended location. ''Notice Schuerman says: "That it was originally located October 18th, 1888, by Ferguson, and that be makes this furi her amended certificate of location without any waiver of any previous acquired rights by said original locator, but for the purpose of cor reciing any errors m the original location or description of record thereof"
 No serious contest was made by appellants to show that the "Cop- per Chef" was an invalid location in any other way or for any other reason. than that tue ground at the time the location was made, was not open to location by virtue of the location of the Nellie" clam by Kell & Evans in 1882. No spe- cial point is made by them that the acts performed by the locator was insufficient to make location of mining claim; they make no pre- tense that they were not aware of the location of the ground, either by Ferguson or by Kell.
 Prior to the act of the Legisla- tive assembly of Arizona approved l March 10th, 1895, there was no pen atty attached to failure to record | a location notice. The law of the Territory prior 10 that time regu- lating the recording of location notices was in effect but a registra- ton act. Location certificates re- corded under it, simply imparted notices as any other act; so, the amended location notice and certificate of location of Schuerman in August, 1896, gave him DO new rights, and he introduction of it before the ury, although useless was harmless.
 III.
 Appellants assign as error the ad- mission of the map and model in evidence. The map was prepared 1y au engineer (Powers) who was Ipon the ground and took the and distances of certain monuments in relation to each other and to other objects, as they were pointed out to him by the Ocator Ferguson; from his field lotes he made the maps which were n evidence. Appellants insist that before a map can be admitted in widen ;e, it must be proved to be ,orrect. That is not always the ase. II 1t is to be used in evidence z $ a substantive and independent ; 'lece of evidence, the appellant is orrect, but if it is Ohly to be used s an illustration of what the wit ! ess details, so much proof is neces- . ary; but in this instance the maps f fere proven to be correct represen- ation of the lines connecting the :, bjects pointed out to the surveyor Y Ferguson. It is not necessary hat the map should be able to | land the tests of Ferguson's evil [ ence as to he particular monu- . rents being the correct monuments !. I the locations testified to by him. . he maps were used in connection se ith the evidence of witnesses, that .. 1ey might show to the jury, that hich they were en1eavoring by o ords to explain; and being used IT that purpose, the practice is too V 'mmoa in nisi prius courts. and 10 well settled by appellate courts meet with anything but our ap- royal. ',