Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-06-02
THE SILVER MINING SUIT.
interesting Points Of Law Upon
Which the Case turned--Of In
tereSt to Erosnectnrs.

Inc case of Jane Laity, plaintiff. VS.
Wm. Armstrong, Frank Armstrong anC
Nm. Bovce, defendants. occupies three
days of Judge Mack's time and a iurv ir
dayton last week, the plaintiff being ren-
resented by Gen. r. NJ. Clarke and the
defendants by Alfred Chartz. In 1896
George foote located the Lucky Star
mine i'll the Devils Gate and Chinatown
Mining District, and put up a notice and
stakes around his claim, and covered bv
his location the Vivian No. 2 ground
which was then being worked bv Fred
S~chlomherg and John BENEFITS. Schlom-
berg and Bennetts worked the Vivian
NO. : until 1894 and failed to do ASSESS
hlent work in 1898 and also in 1895. and
on the first of January, 1897. ID. Arm
strong placed a notice Of location ON rho
VIVIAN No. , ground and defined its
boundaries by reference to Patented
claims adjoining, tht location being made
Tor himself and for VIM. Boyce and VIM.
Armstrong, and following the location
the men went on the ground and worked
al the year, 1877, and until sued by Mrs
lalty' VINO obtained a sixth interest by
deed from her husband. who had bought
from the locator. From the above stated
facts he questions that arose were entire
~ new III mining litigation in Nevada
although many of the old questions as to
Suflclency OF lOcation, annual work. etc
were closely contested. The p~rincinol
questions upon which the case was de-
clded We're: Was the Vivian Mo- a valid
s''pSlStihg location at the time of the 10
cation OF the Lucky Star in 1862 If the
jury found that it was they were instruct
ed thai any attempt to locate it at that
time was null and void, and was though
nothing had been done at all. 1.-THE Wv
ian No. was a valid location at the time
Oh the location of the Lucky Star, the
Lucky Star having been located partly
over II, was it necessary for the owners of
the Lucky Star to relocate the Tizion
alter the Vivian died. or was the ground
open to location by the first conner? The
court instructed the jury in the affirm
atlVe on both phases of the question
upon the authority of the case of Belk vs.
Meagher, reported in l0I /. :, renorts
the defendants locate the Vivian
Si'uiit Wnlle the plaintiff was
clalining possession of the same. without
having located it? The Court instructed
Inc jury hat if they found from the a,i-
dence that the defendants went or thr
peareably and without force and
MAGE location, that III such case possnss-
ION alone would not give her an action of
damages for trespass rs against them. al
though she would have such actions
against a mere intruder. On the question
damages the court instructed the iurv
mat II they fOund that the land BELONGED
the plaintiff and the defendants went
IN peaceably under an honest claim of
right, they were entitled to deduct from
The value Of the ore and milling it. but if
they went in otherwise the plaintiff was
entitled to the full value of the bulIion
in the way of damages. The
-egal arguments on the question of law
occupied most of the dav.
The main point in the case was that tho
plaintiff attempted to make a relocation
before the time of the first location had
red. Hence the location was mil
void, but the defendants locations
later land when the claim was omen
or relocation) was valid.