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

D assignments Of error and specifca- tious under such assignments, som,
 ! of which are insisted upon in tn, brief. An examination of all O them becOm"s unnecessary, iuas much as the v"rdiei of the jury Wa. m support Ui the Copper Chief
 location. The jury were at liberty
 to have rendered one of three yer.
 diets; First, for the appellant:
 supporting the Equator" claim ! second, for the appellees supporting
 the Copper Chief" and third, foi
 the government supporting neit her
 the Equator" nor the Copper
 Chief" claims. Had the appellees
 as defendants in the district court
 gone to trial the second time as
 they did the first time. upon a gen
 eral denial only, the issue woulC
 have been only as to the validity of
 the Equator" claim and the right
 of the owners thereof to maintain
 the same against the government; {;
 but appellees having amended their
 answer and set up 8 claim to the
 ground on ;he Copper Chief loca-
 tlon, the issue became then between
 the Equator" claim and the govern
 ment, between the Copper Chief"
 claim and the government, and be-
 tween the Copper Chief" claim and
 the Equator" claim.
 Much of the evidence in such
 contests, IS an aim by either party
 first, to maintain bis oUn right, or
 failing in that to destroy the right of his adversary as against the gov ernment-and much of the evidence in this case given by both parties and many instructions offered, had relation to ihe destruction of the adversary's rights, rather than to the maintenance of their own. Had the verdict of the jury been for the government, and that neither the plaintiff nor defendant had estab- lished their rights or title to the ground m controversy, by reasoU of the fact that neither had complied with the acts of Congress and the laws of the Territory, then it would have been necessary to have ex- amined many of the errors com plained of with reference to the introduction or rejection of the 1 and the instructions given | and refused. Then much of the evidence and instructions would | have been pertinent to the issues as to whether the Equator" was a valid location as against the loca- tion which was made by Kell & Evans, known as Kell's "Neliie,"
 One of the assignments insisted upon, is that of permitting Schuer- man to be added as a party defend ant, and allowing him to introduce in evidence his amended location to the Copper Chief mining claim. We have not been able to see the necessity of adding Schuerman as a party. The croSs-complaint could have been prosecuted and the action defended by Duke X Ferguson as we'll without as with him; or, he might under the statutes of Arizo- na, have been substituted for them. Paragraph 725 R. S., Ariz: After for the continuance of causes by or against the representa- i've of deceased persons or their successor in interest, provides: "In ,ase of any other transfer of inter st, the action may be continued in be name of the original party, or he court may allow the person to { whom the transfer is made to be { substituted in the action" But , low were the appellants affected by he action of the court in allowing f to be added as a party, md m what way were their interests q
 The jury finding for the Copper c Thief" mining claim necessarily s Ound that Ferguson made a loca- a ion of the Nellie" mining claim in c S79 and 1880; that the annual as V essment or representative work a 'as done thereon in 1881; that the n round was not open to location at ''