The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-11-01
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
The Myrtle Mining Case Comes
to an End.
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS
They Were Found to Be the Owners
and Entitled to Possession-sev-
erai Questions OF Interest
Involved In the Suit.

The trial of the Myrtle mining case
in which John Archibald and John
Murray were plaintiffs. and ]. II. VII
Wan. Richard Dave. Norman Charles
and William q. Epault defendants.
was concluded in Judge Clancy's court
yesterday m the jury. after having
been out about half an hour. returned
a verdict for the plaintiffs. finding that
they were the owners of. and entitled
To the possession of. the ground i'm
controversy. A question or two of
some interest was involved in the suit.
The ease had previously been tried in
department I. OF the district court.
but the jury disagreed.
On July II. 1889. the plaintiffs locat-
ed the Myrtle lode claim adjoining the
Horseshoe and Hibernia mines. both
patented claims. west of the city. On
January 10. 1890, the defendant. jump
ed the ground and located the Con.
Virginia and applied for n patent and
were adversed by the plaintiffs. The
contention of the defendants at the
trial was that the discovery shaft Of
the Myrtle was on the Horseshoe and
that the lines of the Myrtle were also
on that and other adjoining claims and
hat therefore the location vas in
valid. The fight was made on those
points and the testimony. a. well as
he law quoted. was contradictory.
When the case was submitted to the
jury. the court instructed on those
points as follows:
although you may believe from the
evidence that the plaintiffs in making
the location of the Myrtle lode claim
- Ill - 49, ---
adjoining claims and allowed all or
any of the lines to overlap or be laid
within or across or upon the surface
of a valid senior location. for the pur-
pose of defining or securing plaintiffs
parallel end ines and to cover the
ground unoccupied between the ad-
joining claims, the fact of setting OF
said stakes or any of them. upon such
adjoining locations or allowing the
lines of the Myrtle lode claim to over
lap the same would not invalidate the
Myrtle lode claim location. II valid
in other respects. the Myrtle location
would be valid as to all unoccupied
ground within the boundary stakes and
between the adjoining existing claims.
The evidence shows that the Horse
shoe claim mas been patented and II
you find from the evidence that the
location or discovery point of the
ioNatiph "ao oBOh NV within
the boundary lines of the Horseshoe
location then the plaintiffs have not
shown such right of possession as Will
entitle them to a verdict in their favor
and you cannot find for the PLAINTIFF
In this action"
The jury returned "A general verdict
for the plaintiffs and I'm special findings
found hat the plaintiffs at, or prior
to. h time they made the location OF
the Myrtle claim. discovered "a vein
with at least one wall and containing
ore carrying some of the precious
metals in quantities or of such values
as would warrant or Justify a miner
In making "A location therein hat the
original location or discovery point Of
the Myrtle was made on June IL, 1889,
n where the notice of location was
put up was outside the boundary lines
OF the Horseshoe claim: hat the dis
covery OF the Con. Virginia as claim
ed by the defendants was inside of the
end ines of the Myrtle; hat the de-
PENDANTS on January Is. 1890.
located the Con. Virginia and thai
they posted a location notice and had
IL recorded and defined the boundaries
of the claim n performed the assess
ment work: that the defendants dis
covered a vein. but that as between
the plaintiffs and defendants. the
plaintiffs had the better right to the
ground in the controversy.