The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-24
THE NIPPER LODE CLAIM
An Action Brought Against the
NJ. O. P. Company.
AN INJUNCTION GRANTED
In the Combination and Boomerang Cases
the Jury Decides Tina Neither b
Defendant Nor Plaintiff Had
avalid Location.

pany yesterday brought an action in
the district court against the Montana
Ore Purchasing company, Michael A.
Hickey, Edward Hickey and John M.
Stewart. to enjoin the defendants from
mining in the Nipper lode claim. and
from exercising exclusive ownership of
the property. The complaint in the
case alleges that the Anaconda company
is the owner of a'5-36th interest in the
Nipper. The defendants Michael A.
Hickey, Edward Hickey n John M.
Stewart are the owners of 3l-36th parts
of the claim, and are tenants in common
with the plaintiff. The Montana ore
Purchasing company claims some in
terest from the other defendants, the
plaintiff, and the defendants have en-
tered into possession OF the property.
and have for some time exercised ex-
clsive ownership over IL, and have been
extracting and hay taken away and
converted TO their own use ores and min
erals therefrom, while at the same time
admitting the plaintiffs title TO the
premises. Unless restrained by an in
junction they will continue to do so, to
the great and i~rreparable injury of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff does not know
the quantities or values of ores extracted,
and has no means OF a~scertaining, and
has repeatedly protested against the
| acts of the defendants, and notified them
to desist, but the defendants have dis
regarded the protests. The court is
asked to enjoin the defendants from ex-
e~rcising exclusive ownership over the
property or any part Of 1t, and from ex-
tracing any ores, or from disposing OF
any of the ore now on the dump. A
BOND in the sum of $4,000 was filed,
-.a I,,lra Il fnlgou oTa ntAA a tnnnnF-
airy restraining order.
After having been out about % hours
the jury in the mining case of John p.
Reins against Silas f. King. involving
the Combination and Boomerang loca-
tons, both covering the same ground,
brought in a verdict yesterday morning
against both plaintiff and defendant,
deciding that neither party had a valid
location. In a number Of contradic-
tory findings, the jury found as follows:
hat the plaintiff on March IL. 1893, did
not discover a vein or lode with one
well defined wall, containing gold, sill
yer or other mineral bearing earth in
place; that the plaintiff did not so mark
the boundaries of the Combination lode
claim that they could be readily traced;
that the plaintiff did not within 20 days
therefter make and file under oath in
the office of the county recorder a de-
~claratory statement containing the name
of the locator of The Combination lode
claim, the date of such location and such
a description of the claim with refer
ence 10 some natural object or perma-
nent monument as would IDENTIFY the
claim; that the defendant, King, did not
discover a mineral bearing vein on
what he calls the Boomerang before he
made the location; that Henry c. Dahl
performed 500 worth of work on the
/ DatGy nahI the nFipr lnpafinn on the
ground covered by the Combination and
Boomerang, in 1892; that King did not,
or any one for him, set up the necessary
corners on his location; that the defend
ant did not make a valid location OF the
Boomerang on February IL, 1895; that
the defendant did not comply with the
laws of the United States and the state
of Montana in locating the Boomerang;
that the Betsy Dahl did not include
within its lines the ground in contro-
versy known as the Boomerang; that
the representation work was performed
on the Betsy Dahl in 1892; that the own
ers of the Betsy Dahl did not expend
500 in representation work in 1895; that
the Betsy Dahl was not a valid and sub
sisting location on March IL, 1893. at the
time the Combination location was
made: that the Betsy Dahl was not a
valid and subsisting location on Febru-
airy IL, 1896, at the time the Boomerang
location was made; that the ground in
cluded in the Combination claim is the
same as that included in the Betsy Dahl
claim, and their end lines are the same;
that the defendant King did not put up
corner stakes on the Boomerang claim
as required by law.
1t is likely that both sides will ask the
court to reject the findings.
The suit of the Musicians Protective
union against Mrs. Reinhart, admins
- - a. 1rt,tA 80 I..Itt,c Dngahopt
deceased, was tried before Judge Clancy
yesterday afternoon, and the court gave
Judgment to the plaintiff for 5000, the
amount sued for, being a balance of a
shortage in Remnants accounts while
acting as secretary of the association.
]. F. Beck yesterday commenced a
suit against ]. w. Howard for 81, 313 due
on an $500 note executed June Is, 1891,
on which $4s2 in interest was paid ur
to March z, 1895. An attachment was
issued.
Judge Lindsay disposed Of the usual
big amount of Saturday business yes
terday. In obedience to an order made
some time ago. Judge DeWolfe brought
into court a tin box which had been
left in his care by Alex Benham, who
is now in California. and IL was opened
and fits contents examined In the pres
ence of Mrs. ]. A. Talbot. administra-
trix of the estate of Joseph Ramsdell.
deceased. Among the contents of the
box was a book of accounts between
Benham and Ramsdell which showed
that the former was indebted to Rams
dell in the sum Of s11,417.95.
Judge Lindsay heard the proofs in the
divorce case of George V. Enders
against Lillian l.. Enders. and granted
the plaintiff a decree. The testimony
was that the parties were married In
Butte on June Is. 1893, and that on Jan
20, 1895. the defendant deserted the
plaintiff and never came back.
A divorce was also granted the
plaintiff in the case of Alice NJ. Sagei
against Charles s. Sager. They wert
married in Butte on Sept. 80. 1891, and
on Sept. 20. 1896. the defendant left his
wifa Che WAS nermittad IN resume hel