The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-01
BOTH SIDES DEFEATED
Judge Clancy's Decision as to the
Ownership of the World,
1T WILL BE APPEALED
Neither Side Satisfied the Court That It
Had Valid Claim, and So Both
Injunctions Were Sum-
marily Dismissed

an unexpected end yesterday by Judge
Clancy deciding that neither side had
made sufficient showing to be entitled
to standing in court. and therefore
dismissed both injunction suits. The
result is that both sides win and both
lose. Haupt failed to prove that he had
made a mineral discovery on the resi-
dence lots of E. w. Thomas and James
McGovern, upon which he located the
World lode claim, and Thomas and Nc
Govern We're found themselves to be
trespasserS on the ground, owing to an
alleged imperfect title. Haupt was pre-
vented from representing the ground by
the occupants of the ground, and he
got an injunction to restrain them from
interfering. Thomas and McGovern
then enjoined Haupt from working and
both injunctions Were heard at the same
time, and as both were dismissed, both
sides won, but both also lost when the
court decided that neither had any right
to the ground.
The testimony of the defense was
concluded yesterday morning with the
testimony of Peter Breen and E. w.
Thomas, one of the defendants They
testified that the ground showed no in
dications of vein, that there was no
quartz showing in any of the shafts
and that the ground was valueless for
mining purposes. At the conclusion of
the testimony Attorney Hail. for Haupt,
made a motion to strike out all of the
testimony of the defendants relating to
their title to the ground in controver
for the reason that they held. under the
leila mill site location. an invalid loca-
ton, and on which no patent was ever
issued. In his argument Mr.. Hall said
the evidence showed that one Hartman
ls.aa tod
testimony that he ever located or
owned a quartz lode claim. and the
United States law requires mill sites to
be located and used in connection with
mining claims. It was not shown that
the Zelia mill site was located in con-
nection with the leila quartz lode claim
owned by j. G. c. Thornton or that il
was used for the purposes for which
1t was located. On the contrary, it was
shown that the ground never was used
for mill site, but was plated into
town lots and made part of the
Thornton addition to Butte. No patent
was ever secured and none ever can
be obtained. said Mr. Hall, because the
conditions of the location We're never
complied with. He argued. therefore
that the ground was unoccupied gov
eminent land and open to location, and
the defendants Were nothing less than
trespaSsers.
JuhSe hCIldlloH, III reply, argued
that the plaintiff had offered no proof
that the ground was unoccupied or sub
Ject to location. The ground was occu-
pied by Hartman and other miners, who
worked on the leila lode claim. and
such occupation is recognized as a use
Tor mining purposes, and the defend
ants have shown q perfect chain of title
from the original locator down and they
have been in active and bona fide pos
session. There was no testimony that
Hartman did not also locate the leila
lode claim and afterwards transfer it to
Thornton, and the presumption is that
he did On the question of Haupts $
right to the ground, Judge Mediation
said the evidence was conclusive that
there had been no discovery of mineral
or vein on the ground and it was in
cumbent upon the plaintiff to show a
discovery of valuable vein. and one
that would justify the expenditure of
money in it's development. The testi-
mony as to the mill site location is COM
petent to show the nature of the de
PENDANTS possession and title, and is
good as against the plaintiffs occupa-
ticn until the latter proves a valid To-
cation. which he has not done.
AT the conclusion of the arguments,
Judge Clancy decided that neither side
had a standing in court and decided
that neither Haupt or Thomas or Nc
Govern had any legal title to the
ground. In the first place he said.
Thomas and McGovern did not show a
color of title. Four or five witnesses
testified that Haupt had discovered a
vein in the ground and eight or nine
testified that the ground was of a non
mineral character the weight of tes-
timony showing that the plaintiff
Haupt, had no valid location The
judge therefore decided that neither
side had a standing in court He sus-
tanned Halls motion to strike out all
the defendants testimony as to title
and dismissed both the suit of Haupt
against Thomas and McGovern and
Thomas against Haupt and refused
both injunctions
Judge Mediation observed that his
clients were in possession of the
ground.
You are in possession, but wrong
fully" said the court.
Not wrongfully. your honor" said
Judge Mediation. and ] can show you
any number of decisions to show that
our possession should be protected"
We'll. that is my position in this
matter" replied the court
Both sides took exceptions to the
courts ruling. and then the judge
asked:
is that alp"
1T is not all we want. but"
But it is all you'll get" said the
judge. interrupting Mr. Mediation
The case will be taken to the supreme
court. Haupt claims to be satisfied
with the result. as he has succeeded in
doing his representation work on a por-
ton of the ground not included in the
suits and on which he had NOT baen