The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-09

forth with great skill The different
parts of the workings are differently
colored and labeled so that they can
be distinguished and identified at a
glance.
The general underground maps and
the apex map are also very large, clear
and complete. The individual maps of
the various levels are contained in a
case. being hung to the ceiling on
spring rollers, which is an improve
ment upon the system of pinning them
on frame separately when needed.
After court was opened a recess of
Is minutes was taken to give the de-
PENDANT time to bring in and arrange
its paraphernalia.,
After the recess William Scallon, of
counsel for the Boston & Montana COM
pany. defendant, opened the case for
the defendant by offering the title
deeds of the Pennsylvania mining claim
in evidence. These included the Penn
sylvania patent and copies of the APP
plication for patent and of the orig
inal location notice. certified to by the
commissioner of the general land Iof-
flee. These papers were offered to show
what claim the patent was issued upon
and to connect the patent with the
land
Judge Mediation, of counsel for
plaintiff. objected to the introduction
VI tHC ICil SopS VI tiiV VI io-
tice of location as irrelevant. inmate
rial and incompetent.
The reasons given for the objection
were stated at length. Judge McHat-
ton said that the notice was void, as
appeared by the copy offered in evil
dence. 1t had not been verified by the
locators as required by the statutes of
Montana territory and the United
States. and it did not comply with the
laws in force at the time the certified
copy was dated or purports to have
been made.
He said that the paper offered in
evidence was not a certified copy of any
notice of location Of any claim at all,
and especially not OF the Pennsylva-
MIA claim. Further, the application for
patent and the patent itself were made
and issued upon a different notice of
location, and it is shown by the patent
and other papers that the alleged loca-
ton notice was not made upon the
same land for which the application for
patent and the patent were made, is
sued and granted.
Judge Mediation said that the al
legged original location notice of the
Pennsylvania claim. being void, gives
no rights to the de . 1t or its pre-
decessors in interest aid, being void,
the patent of the Pennsylvania claim
cannot relate back to the location no
tlCe at dill, OF III any wise dtldCH llSell
to the notice or to the ground within
the Pennsylvania lines.
Judge Mediation also objected to the
Introduction of the application for pat
ent, upon the same grounds. He said
that it could not form any title to the
Pennsylvania claim, and was no evil
dence of title. The patent, offered in
evidence also, in connection with the
application for patent, renders the APP
plication for patent irrelevant and i'm
material. as the patent itself is the
best evidence of title.
Judge Mediation added to his first
objection to the certified copy of the
locat ton notice the objection that the
same was inadmissible under the
pleadings in the case and under the is
sues raised by the pleadings. It did
not correspond to the allegations of
the defendants answer, he said. He
made a like addition to his objection
to the certified copy of the application
for patent.
At the conclusion of Judge McHat-
tons statement of the objections, AS
sociate Counsel Frank E. Corbett ar
gued the objections at length.
He said that the Pennsylvania pat
ent was set up as the title under
which the defendant claimed the land,
and that the Pennsylvania location no