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

uation of this sort is developed in this
case, the question of priority of the
pennsylvania or the Johnston location
notices may decide the ownership of the
designated portions of the veins in
VOWED. said Mr.. Corbett.
But, he continued, 1.-The answer in
this case makes no claim of joint
apices and veins. Therefore, this evil
dence is entirely inadmissible.
III there is an apex in the Pennsyl-
Vania ground and these gentlemen in
tend to claim that, while admitting we
have an apex in the Johnston, they are
entitled to the joint vein by virtue of
the priority of the Pennsylvania loca-
ton notice, their intention should have
been included in the pleadings," he
added
He read Colorado decision support
ing his argument. The decision holds
that mining claim patent, obtained
upon an amended location notice. does
not relate back to the original notice of
location when the latter is invalid.
The argument of Mr.. Corbett was re-
piled to by Mr.. Scallon of counsel for
the defendant. Before proceeding 20
argument he offered in evidence two
notices of application for patent and
the certificate of the county recorder
showing the record of the notices.
MIR. Hughes of counsel for plaintiffs
pers as to the others, adding the objec-
ton that no connection between these
documents and the patent had been
shown.
Mr.. Scallon opened his argument upon
the objections by saying that the first
thing done by the plaintiff at the OPEN
ing of the case was to put in evidence
the notice of location and the patent of
the Johnstown claim.
I'VE offer to do the same, and they
object and refer to the lack of allega-
tions in the pleadings. Yet, in the
pieadings, they make only a slight ref
erence to their patent and none at all
to their location notice." said Mr.. Seal
lon.
Consistency is jewel, yet they,
though putting in their location notice,
claim that our offer to put ours in Is ir-
relevant" he added.
Counsel has said that claim Of To-
cation will not be supported by an I'm
verified location notice, yet in a case
tried before Judge Mediation. of the
learned counsel for defendant, the very
objection here made by them was over
ruled and the ruling sustained in the
Montana supreme court said Mr.. Seal
lon.
He then read the decision in case
tried in this county to show that the
papers offered in evidence should be adj
mltteO. In tT1lS case the statements III
the location notice were not verified, yet
the location notice was admitted in evil
dence Also the form of the vertical
ticn was exactly the same as that N
the Pennsylvania case, word for word.
Mr.. Scallon next read decision to the
effect that a mining patent relates back
to the location notice.
Now, II the court pleases, In the de-
cision here cited our supreme court ex-
pressly passed upon the question now
presented. Whether the same view pre-
walls in Colorado or Utah matters not.
our supreme court set the matter at
rest as late as 1885," said Mr.. Scallon.
He then read another affidavit of
verification admitted in evidence in a.
case which not even signed by the To-
Gators and which in its contents was
identical with that attached to the
Pennsylvania location notice.
He then stated that all matters estab-
fishing the discovery and location Of a
mining claim came before the land
office and are there adjudicated before
a patent Is issued. The issuance of a
patent proves that all preliminary re-
quirements have been conformed TO,
and after the issuance it is incompetent
to go back and question the validity of
the location notice. Several more de-