The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-09
tice was the principal thing objected

tice was the principal thing objected
to.
1T is automatic that documentary
evidence must be valid on the face of
1t, and il it is void on the face it is
not admissible at ALL" said Mr. Cor
bett.
He maintained that the notice of To-
cation offered in evidence was void,
and that if he could establish that fact
it should not be admitted in evidence
He stated that the notice was pecu-
liar. The verifiCation was the thing
that rendered it void. 1t had been made
out on printed form, and in the veri-
fication the locators swear only to the
fact that 1t is a copy of another no.
tice posted on the claim. Mr.. Ccrbett
commended that the verification was in
valid. and said that his contention was
upheld by an unbroken line of decisions
of the supreme court. When locators
swear that an instrument is a copy of
another instrument. they do not swear
to the contents of either
He then read many cases and de-
cisions In line with his position.
He said that the Montana law in
1877. the date Of the location notice,
required that the truth of the contents
OF the notice be sworn to. The loca-
tors must swear to the names of the
locators, the date of the location and
the veins described in the notice.
There is a legal doctrine. almost
crystalized into law, Mr.. Corbett said.
which says that location notice shall
not be inquired into after the issue of
patent, but there is variation of the
doctrine In some cases, where there
is conflict of rights to claims, courts
will inquire into the rights of parties as
conferred by the location notice, disre-
garding the patent.
.Conpsel for defendant offar tho In.
cation notice in evidence in order to
tie the notice and the patent together
and show that their rights on the Penn
sylvania hill originated in 1877. They
can have no other reason. They have
a right to offer the location notice in
evidence, but 1t must be Competent.
Therefore l object to the Introduction
Of this notice for the reasons stated
said Mr.. Corbett.
Mr.. Corbett said that there is also
a discrepancy between the description
of the land in the notice of location
and that in the patent. He handed to
the court, as part of his argument. a
sketch of the land boundaries as de-
fined in the patent, with those covered
by the notice of location superimposed.
The boundaries did not agree. the
ground enclosed within one set ex-
tending beyond that enclosed in the
other, and vice versa. If the location
notice was o1ereQ TO snow the Identity
of the land covered by it and the pat
emit, and to connect the Instruments
the ground should be the same. 1t was
not He read the descriptions of the
lands covered, contained in the respec-
tive documents, to show that they did
not agree.
Now, your honor. If you decide that
the lack of a verification is not mate
rial, then the papers can't be let in be-
cause of the disagreement of the de-
scriptions in the location notice and
the patent. and the difference in the
areas described in both" said Mr.. Cor
bett.
1.-The patent was issued upon another
and an amended location notice. 1t
was not issued upon the original loca-
ton notice at ALL" added Mr.. Corbett.
Mr.. Corbett next argued as to the
materiality of the location notice. He
said that the pleadings in the case
mention no kind of title at all. The
pleadings and proof must agree but
the defendant had not plead anything
at all making the evidence offered ma
terial.
1T has been decided that where
veins having independent apices in diff
ferent claims, join on their dips, the
older locator takes the vein at the
juncture and below it. Then, il sit