Arizona republican., 1898-04-17

i conseouence of said bonds. Judgment affirmed.
 Manley Snyder ct al vs. Pima coun- ] ty, appeal from Pima county, action On
 an official bond. Judgment affirmed i T. E. Jordan ct al vs. John Duke ct
 al, appeal from Pima county. This is
 one of the most important cases heard i this term of the supreme court and if
 anything more were needed to attest
 this than the points involved it is fur
 nished by the array of attorneys in the case. F. E. Corbett, Herndon & Nor
 ris and John J. Hawkins for appel
 lants; w. H. Barnes, T. w. Johnston
 and Franklin B. Brooke, for appellees
 Duke and Ferguson filed in the land
 office at Prescott an application for
 patent in May, 1891, to mining claim
 in the Verde mining district, called the Copper Chief In July, 1891, the ap- pellants filed a contest to this claim on the ground that large portion of the Copper Chief ground was within the limits of claim belonging to
 them called the Equator. Suit was in- stituted to quiet title, and the action
 has been fought in Yavapai county,
 where plaintiffs obtained a judgment.
 Appeal to supreme court resulted in reversal. The new trial was upon change of venue taken to Pima county. Here were introduced several claims known as "Ferguson's Nellie'' and
 "KelPs Nellie,' and the trial was by r jury, the verdict being in favor of the 3 Copper Chief" parties. Several prin- t ciples were laid down by the supreme . court in the opinion just handed down |. affirming the judgment of the court be- 7. low, and these will no doubt go long 7. way towards forever settling many contests Of a similar nature. Until - claim has been abandoned or for f felted no other location can be made d or the ground. There is no such y thing as making location by reason d of being already located, and then be- e cause of failure on the part of the tt owners to support that claim by aban- It donment or forfeiture, have the relo- $ cation relate back to the original act h Work cannot be fitfully performed Q y. portion of it at one time, quit and gc IT away, then resume again so as to take e all of the following year to do what d was necessary for the year previous Id Having resumed work it must be pur 1T sued to completion. If not, and tn, Id ground is left it becomes forfeited I t. work is resumed before any interest. 1t intervene no forfeiture can occur unti Tt the work is abandoned. Both partie le in this case believe the property full. SC worth as much as the United Verde Tt and the settlement of the suit insure l. the creation of another copper caml
 as large as Jerome and Bisbee Tn, is legal fight has been a hard one ant es Judge Barnes yesterday was hearth. le congratulated by his brother attorney
 on the victory in the obtaining O e, which he played so important part. E. Billups vs. Freeman, rehearing de
 nied. er Parker vs. Territory, rehearing de y. nied.
 to Dennis vs. United States, rehearins in denied.
 "a Hereford vs O'Connor, rehearing de d. nied.
 s. Daggs vs. Hoskins, rehearing de m nied.
 d. s. P. Railroad company vs. Tomlin. l. son, motion to file mandate from tht l. supreme court of the United States al
 lowed.
 ?, Court adjourned to meet again June g. II, when the balance of the decisions d. will be rendered.