The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-10

portunity to contest the patent" said
Mr.. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes held that patent is con-
elusive of the rights it gives, but that
| 1t cannot go back to an Invalid location
notice and give 1t life and effect. The
| patent only goes back to valid loca-
| ton, and the defendant could not start
| its rights earlier than the date of its
| valid location. There can be amended
| location notice after amended location
| notice, and the patent relates back to
them, but it can relate back only to
| the first valid one.
| Mr.. Hughes read the Tyler and Last
| Chance case, cited by Mr.. Scallon. In
most of it's features it paralleled the
present case. The decision in this case
held that the patent of a mining claim
is not conclusive as to the date of the
location, but only of the rights given
the patentee at the time the patent is
issued. The patent only relates back to
the date OF valid location. In this
case evidence was admitted to prove
the date of location, the contest of
rights going back to the date of the
contestants location notices.
Mr.. Hughes contended that there
We're no rights gained by the Pennsyl-
vsnia locators in 1887, because their To-
cation notice was invalid Adverse To-
Gators could have entered the claim at
any time and defeated their location.
The Pennsylvania patent could not go
back and make their invalid location
notice valid
Mr.. Hughes read many cases at
length, in support of his argument
He said that the cases say that where
it Is wanted to add something to a pat
ent, it must be done by competent evil
dence, and that when a location notice
is offered for that purpose it must be a
valid notice.
Prospective underground conflicts are
not subject to land Office adjudication
at the time of the issuance of patent.
therefore parties to them are not bound
by the patent.
Mr.. Hughes proceeded to read more
authorities and a decision defining the
authority vested in the land office as to
what it may insert in the terms of a
patent. This decision stated that pat
ents are conclusive as to all matters
connected with their issue.
Mr. Hughes said that, assuming there
is conflict over underground veins by
virtue of joint apexes, the land office
did not attempt to adjudicate any such
matter.
Mr. Hughes further said that the
counsel had said that the location no.
tice is only, or, at least, prima facie
evidence. That kind of eV dence must
be valid on it's face. That is not the
case with the location notice. 1t cam
not be that kind of evidence because it
is void on its face. That being so, 1t is
not admissible in evidence.
Counsel said that the proceedings in
the land office cannot be assailed," said
Mr.. Hughes. We had no chance what
ever to assert our rights in the land
office, the proceedings being in most
part ex parte. Yet the counsel for the
defendant say that we are bound by
those proceedings, and that our rights
are concluded" said Mr.. Hughes.
He contended that this proposition is
revolving to the sense of justice and also
in. contradiction to all authorities.
He read an authority to show that
the patent was proof; that at the time
patent was issued there had been dis
covery and a location made, and was
conclusive as to those matters: but that
the patent did not show the date Of the
location notice and was not conclusive
as to that. a.a- -a
Mr. Hughes read the decision in a
case where one party had made appli
cation for a patent and an adverse,
claimant had failed to come in and
contest at the land office. The decision
was to the effect that the adverse
claimant was estopped and cut off from
further controversy by his failure to
contest at the proper time. This case,
however, does not apply to the present
case
Mr.. Hughes asked why the date of
the location notice was not included III
the patent If the patent was conclusive
as to it, and why it was necessary to
introduce the location notice in evidence
if the patent concluded all matters pre-
ceding it's issuance.
At this point a discussion arose be-
tween the opposing counsel as to
whether the Pennsylvania patent was
issued upon the original location no.
tice, of date June, 1877, offered in evil
dence and objected to, or upon an
amended location notice. of date March,
1882, not offered in evidence, counsel
for the defendant holding that the pat
ent was issued upon the first named
notice and counsel for plaintiff holding
that it was made upon the other.
The amended location notice not be-
ing offered in evidence, Mr.. Hughes was
not at liberty to discuss it in detail, but
he went so far as to say that 1t was
the earliest valid location notice.
He said, in summing up his argu-
ment. that the original location notice
was void ON its face: was not the basis
of the patent, and was therefore mad
missible as evidence. Also that the
plaintiff could not be bound by the ex
parte proceedings of the land office and
thus concluded of its rights.
The question was submitted to the
court at 3 o'clock. and Judge Clancy
said that he wished to read the authori-
ties bearing upon it; that counsel had
argued the case for two days and We're
tired, probably, and that if 1t were
agreeable he would continue the case
till Monday morning and withhold his
ruling upon the objections till then.
The case was continued till Monday
at the hour named, when the
court will make a ruling, probably, ard
the counsel for the defendant resume
putting in it's record of title.