Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-06-14

Wright, and includes ground not in.
cluded within the original location. and
that the survey was made without re-
gard to monuments and without refer.
ence to any discovery shaft; that new
monuments were erected by Mr.. Brown
at that time corresponding to his sur
vey, but that the monuments claimed
to have been erected by Mr.. Wright
We're not found, nor was the location
made to conform to the boundaries de-
fined by Mr.. Wright.
Z. The evidence Of Mr.. Brown def
nitely establishes the fact that the tun-
mel, at the mouth of which Mr.. Wright
marked the tree which constituted his
original notice of location, was the CEN
ter of the claim as originally located by
Mr.. Wright, and from this point the
claim ran 300 feet north and 1900 feet
south. The amended location shows
that this center line of the original
claim Is the west side line of the amend
ed location. and that the original loca-
ton ran 300 feet east of the center line
as claimed by Mr. Wright, but the
amended location extends 600 feet to the
east of the center line of the original To-
cation as claimed by Mr.. Wright
s. I further find, from a preponder-
day of September, 1885, the plaintiffs,
r. M. Carley, Pablo Amanda and Man.
uel Amanda, made location of a min
ing claim called the Gold Coin by post
ing a location notice upon said claim,
having the same surveyed by H. T.
Brown, a deputy United States mineral
surveyor, and having monuments erect
ed thereon to mark the boundaries
thereof, and that the said plaintiffs
caused a copy of such location notice to
be recorded. and sunk 1O-foot shaft
within ninety days, as required by law,
and that they discovered mineral bear
ing rock in place upon said Gold Coin
mining claim, and that the other plaint-
| iffs in this cause obtained interests
| therein by virtue of several convey
ances to them by and from the owners
or locators of such claim.
g. I further find as a fact that the
locators and owners of the said Gold
Coin mining claim had complied with
the law in regard to doing assessment
work for the years 1896. 1897 and 1898.
10. l further find as fact that there
is a conflict between the said Gold Coin
mining claim and the said Sunset min
ing claim, as surveyed for patent and
described in the said application for
patent to the extent of 6.S1 acres.
II. I find from the evidence that the
plaintiffs have not established facts
sufficient to warrant the court in
awarding judgment upon which pat
ent may be obtained for said Gold Coin
lode, but that the showing made by the
plaintiffs is sufficient only to establish
better right of possession in the
plaintiffs than that of the defendant
company.
AS conclusions of law from the above
facts I find:
l. That the attempted location Of the
Sunset mining claim by Samuel c.
perfect, and was wholly void and of no
validity.
2. find that Samuel C. Wright had
nothing to convey to either Mr. Simon
son or the Gold Eagle Mining Company.
The said Simonson and said Gold Eagle
Mining Company took nothing by such
conveyances so far as the Sunset min
ing claim is concerned.
3. l further find that the Gold Eagle
Mining Company was not the owner of
the ground claimed to be conveyed to
it as embraced in the pretended loca-
ton by said Samuel C Wright, and the
sheriff's sale of said pretended claim
as the Sunset mining claim was of no
validity in so far as it pretended to
convey to Edward P. Hackett the min
ing claim called the Sunset; that the
company, having no property rights In
said claim at the time of the sale by
said sheriff, nothing could be sold or
conveyed by said sheriff, nor could the
grantors, Hackett and wife and Smith
and wife, convey to the defendant COM
pany any property right or title in and
to said pretended Sunset mining claim,
the whole chain of title being based
upon void location. and must fall
with it.
4. I further find that the location of
the Gold Coin, as shown by the evil
dence in this case, was a valid and sub
sisting location upon the 10th day Of
November, 1896; that the plaintiffs, r.
NJ. Carley, Pablo Amanda and Manuel
Amanda, were entitled to the exclusive
possession of the ground embraced
within said Gold Coin location, and that
the ground embraced within said loca-
tion was upon that date not subject to
location, the same not being vacant and
unoccupied mineral land, nor was 1t
subject to the location in the nature of
an additional or amended location.
5. further find that at the time the
amended location was attempted to be
made by the defendant company on the
10th day of November, 1896. the ground
embraced within said amended location,
in so far. as the same conflicted with
the ground embraced within the loca-
ton of the Gold Coin, was not open to
such location, and that such amended
location was void to the extent Of its
conflict with the Gold Coin location.
6. further find that the defendant
was not at the time this cause was be-
gun entitled to the possession of the
ground claimed by them in so far as
the same is in conflict with the ground
embraced in the Gold Coin location Of
the plaintiffs. nor Is the defendant
company entitled to patent upon the
ground in conflict.
Z. I further find that the plaintiffs