Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-07-20

LIN AAo VI an S1AS VI
against the Butte Water company. to
quiet title to a quartz lode mining claim,
located in the Highland district, was re-
sumed in Judge L~indsay's court this
morning. The plaintiff having closed it's
side last evening, the defendant offered
it's location notice in evidence as a starter
for testimony it intended to introduce.
An objection was made on the ground
that the contents of the notice did not
| comply with the law governing the loca-
ton and holding of mining claims. The
matter was argued at considerable length,
Mr.. Healey, citing authorities and making
! verbal statements to maintain his posi-
ton. He referred to the legislative bill
governing the location of claims, saying
among other things that a portion of 1t
| had been drafted by John Gillie, the mini
! ing engineer, and afterward submitted by
| him to the Society of Mining Engineers
for approval. After some changes had
been made it had been adopted and given
to the code commission, finally becoming
an integral part of the mining laws of
Montana. Its adoption. he said. was for
the purpose of preventing the making Of
y y "No - 49,
purpose of making the record show that
which was shown on the ground. He re-
ferred to the ruling Of Judge Parker Of
Madison county on the subject.
| Mr.. Roote for the defense maintained
that the ruling Of the judge in any other
district did not govern the actions Of
/ the court in this district, but there was
nothing wrong about maintaining it for
the sake of argument. He stated that
the water company had two grounds for
| defense, one of which was on a valid To-
cation made prior to that of Bakers.
California decisions touching upon the
point at issue We're read and applied.
After the attorneys had fired and fallen
back, the judge examined the location
notice, compared it's angles with the law
and hen passed upon the objection as
follows:
1.-The location offered in evidence is
not, in certain parts, in accordance with
the present statutory requirements. The
defendant cannot claim title to the prem
Uses in controversy after particularly
having located the Keno in the manner
evidenced by the notice of location. The
declaratory statement which it is re-
quired shall be filed with the county clerk
must contain certain verified statements,
and as the notice sought to be introduced
is lacking the court Will sustain the OBJ
lection to it's Introduction. 1t may be
that if prior to the commencement of this
trial an amended declaratory statement,
showing the facts necessary, was mad
and filed. such amended statement might
have been offered in evidence. That is
merely a suggestion, however,"
The taking of oral testimony was then
resumed. Grin Hall, mine and civil en-
gineer, was asked by the defendant a
| question concerning the lines of the claim,
! but before he had time to answer, the
| plaintiff objected. saying it had not been
| shown that the defendant had any right
or title to the property, and therefore
virtually had no standing in court. The
attorney for the defendant responded and
! then ap%ologized to the court for having
consumed the time. In passing upon the
objection the judge said the defendant
! had been in possession of the claim for
| three years, and the plaintiff was en-
| deaVoring to eject him and get possess
sion. He would therefore overrule it. The
| witness then described the boundary ines
of the property and other marks of identi-
f~ication, after which court adjourned for
the noon hour.