Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-05-31
MIR. bARNARD'S
ANSWER FILED
DENIES THAT GEO. H. CASEY
OWNS DISPUTED PORTION
OF THOMAS LODE.
DENIES THAT PLAINTIFF
WAS WRONGFULLY OUSTED
Furthermore It is Claimed That the
Cause Of Action is Barred
Long Ownership.

Attorneys Hamilton & Thesher filed in
Count today the answer of A. w. Barnard
ITO the TITLE suit brought by George III.
Casey against Mr.. Barnard n about so
others who reside on the HON lode
claim, which comprises a portion of the
townsfte of Butte. In the document Mr..
Barnard denies that the plaintiff is the
owner OF the property in dispute, which
consists OF. lots 10, 20, % and "a of block
Is: denies that the plaintiffs predeces-
sors in interest were ever the owners in
fee sinaple of any portion of the Thomas
lode claim or that he, h defendant.
w~rongfully took possession Of the lots
mentioned by ousting the plaintiff or his
predecessors from it. He denies that the
predecessors assigned to the plaintiff any
right. claim or demands for damages by
eason of the alleged wrongful detention.
use or occupation of the premises or that
the cause Of action is now held by the
plaintiff.
Further, the defendant says that the
cause of action Is barred by the provis-
ions of section 20 and other sections OF
the code of civil procedure. He alleges
that a portion of lot rs OF block 10 a
the other lots became his property IN
December of 1881, lac having bought them
from .JOhn A. Leggalt, Lee w. Fosser ana
fannie Hotchkiss for a Valuable conslo-
GRAFTON and secured a deed to them; tnaN
ait that time the boundary lines of the
J. Ia loAO hAA
northeast corner never having b en- per-
manently located or marked by any aus.
tinguishing monument or opJect' tlat
ait that time the plaintiffs alleged preae-
cessors did not know the exact iocaaon
of the east or north lines of the claim, or
had they for many years later amy rea-
SCRABBLE means of ascenitadGling une ioca-
tion of these lines or the norlneast col~
ner; that ait the time THE iced was exc
cuted the only object he had n securlne
IA yn,oc tn QNg1hH nIlEdlIOlS
that since the property was decided 70
him me has occupied 1T ana erecteo
thereon buildings and permanent III
movements involving great expense ~
him. u +h.+
the nlaintiffs alleged claim of right ana
title is by virtue of a pretended patent
issued by the United States on or ABOUT
| January 4, 1895, for what was represent
ed to be the Thomas quartz lode claln'
which said pretended patent IS ana was
at all times void for the reason that the
location notice upon which the patent
was issued was made and filed in Deer
Lodge on the 26th of April, 1875, and at
that time there was no known mine OK
gold, silver, cinnibar or copper exastlng
within the lines of the claim; that on
or about the 25th of July 1876, u. Is.
O'Bannon, then probate judge OF Deer
Lodge, entered in the land office at Hell
ena the townsite of Butte. said toWnslte
then containing 1888 acres, and paid
the government $229.79 in full payment
for the townsite; that at that time there
did not exist within the ines of the
Thomas lode claim any min of gold, sill
Yer, cinnabar or copper or was there any
valid mining claim subject to be held
under the then existing avs Of congress;
that on the Goth of September, 1877, the
government issued to Mr.. O'Bannon, in
trust for the occupants of the townsite,
a patent to the ground, and there did not
then exist within the townsite any mine
of aluable minerals.
In conclusion the defendant asks to be
adjudged the owner in fee simple of that
portion Of the claim to which he has q
deed.