The Nome nugget., 1901-11-30

western boundary of No. Ia creek claim as located and recorded by A. Carlson in lS9S for 1920 feet up stream, thence 660 feet in a, westerly direction" If, now, we attempt to fit these courses to the stakes set by Steen.and shown ,on his map. "f!Xhibit A." it will be seen that the same, difficulties arise, as those urged by plaintiff so Carlson's notice. In the Carlson case the paaintiff insists that the notice of location. describes v sinuous line: if that is true is-it hot true that the Steen notice alsodescribea the same sinuous line for his cast boundary? If the plaintiff succeeds on that point he goes out of court upon his .oWn certificate for i'm that description it is,the Carlson. certificate repeated..
 Tne,Car}sOrnotice commences at the upper or northerRend of claim No. IA, thence running along up the bed of 5he creek l5e0 feet and thence 30O feet east and westof the center stake. Two things are certain from this notice-the first is that there was an upper and a lower stake, and the second iS the& the claim is to be 300 feet on each side of hne drawn from the upper to the lower stake. The plaintiff insists that this lneis si,N,ons one, .whilethe defend. ant insists that it2is to be straight From the evidence in this case it is clear to the-court that Carlson's intsn- tion was that it be straight. He drew q straight line at the time of his stalk ing from the lower to the upper stake. Those whom he employed to set the corner stakes have testified that these cot ,,t af lyi hn claim a parallelogram; the re-setting of those stakes in August. 1900, was in the form of a parall elogram, and from all the evidence in the case l am sasi fled that every person who set any stakes upon this claim from the first location in 1898 to the survey in 1900 set them wite view of making the claim parallelogram and not. sinudns or snake like.
 Every Claim Parallelogram.
 The court will not shut its eyes to the fact that every claim on Ophir creek is parallelogram, including those immediately above and below the one in question. While the act of Carlson in setting his stakes in the form of parallelOgram may not be
 
 of his location notice. yet it is of some service to the court in determining the construction of its language when a question arises about it.. The similar construction of every location certti- cate along Ophir creek is also of assist ance to the court. It would be ruinOus to the best interests of this, region if the court should refuse to recognize eontcmpofancOus construction of these location notices by the miners them selves. Such local construction has been given to similar notices along Ophir creek and other creeks, and in every case that construction has been consistent with the one given by Carl son and the defendant in this case.. The court will not Overturn that cOnstruc' tion for the purpose of forteiting a title acquired in good faith and for 8 valu. able consideration. twill not enforce diifei cut cons. ruction the purpose of taking one mans property, for which he has paid Value received, and upOr which he has expended large sums c1 money, that it may be given to another man, whose claim is wholly withou, either law or equity to support it. This determination tlnds abundant aut hOrity in the law. Section 6S2 of the Code O1 Civil Procedure. contained in the act ot June 6, 1900, lays down these rules for cOnstruing the descriptive part of a conv 9yance of real property when the construction is doubtful and there arf no other sufficient circumst ances to do. termine it.
 First: Where there are certain dei- nite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown or false, does n,t frustrate the conveyance. but it is tD be cCrsru, by such part culars, ii tia ey constitute a sufficient description tC a ,certain it's application:
 ',Second: When permanent and wis ible or ascertained bOundries or mOnu. men:s art inconsistent with the meas urements, either of linesy angles or sur faces, the boundries or monuments are paramount"
 Upper and Lower Initial Stakes. 1 While the location notice in this case is not a conveyance in the strict sense, yet it IS the fOunda ioa of a conveyance from the government and the same rule may be adopted in construing it. Now there are in this certificate at least two definite and ascertained particulars, to
 wit, the upper and lower initial stakes and the 3UO feet east and west. These definite and ascertained particulars ir
 the description are sufficient, and ir connection with the construction giver by Carlson and all of his employes tC fix the form ot. the mining claim ir question, and the court will not permit that which is definite and certain to be destroyed by that which. is indefinite and uncertain.
 Description is Valid.
 And in accordance with the second rule tire court will accept the perman ent and visible boundries set by Carlson and his employees as the real descript tion of the property and will reject the