The Nome nugget., 1901-10-15

more particnlaI, ,flescriptian of the lcca. tionh hp reference to nat,iral objects. Not q Model :Nstlcs
 The claims of Marble were conveyed to the plllnsiH. who being ip possession, brought this suit to quict his title to the cta{rn. The first point urged againssr Marple's location is that his notice,fs insufficient because it does not contain suclr reference 10 natural objects or permanent monuments a> to certainly identify claim. Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes lays down this mandatory requirement. in relation to marking and the notice:
 "The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries @ # be readily traced All records of mining claims hereafter made shall contain tlre name or numes of the locators. the date of the location claims located by reference to soms natural object CT permanent monument as will identify the claim"
 It Is claimed on the part of the de- fendant that MaPple's notice of location and his stalking, did not comply with these provisions, and are therefore in sufficient npon which to base valiG location.
 IL must be conceded that the notice is not Il model one. yet is nearly the same form as that first made by Martin It does contain the name of the locator the date of the location. and attempt: to describe the claim. If it does SC with sufficient accuracy it is sufficient to form basis for the miners title. This Court will take judicial notice of those general methods and rules O locating an marking mines upon the public don an in Ala ka. that are SC well known and fixed in the in the min ing system as to be familiar to all min CTS and in all the mining districts. Oi these familiar and general rules one is that the first discovery is generally called and known as the discovery claim. and that when the same is with in q gu!ch or stream the claims are marked or nun Eered from discovery claim up or down the gulch or stream
 Permanent Monuments.
 Another is that claims are frequent, numbered or marked hy reference tC
 
 as to be used by all the miners along and is so used by other locators as a permanent monument. These matters are so widely known and accepted h, them, and are so commonly used and depended upon in making locations, that if the court failed to recognize them and follow them it would disor- gan'ze the entire mining system m this territory and render titles void and in. secure which have been acquired in good faith in full reliance upon the system. $" well known and ike are these methods of locating mining claims that it may be fairly said tbat m placer mining gulches and streams there exists a well recognized and es- iablished system of surveys having the discovery or first claim as the base line. To destroy that system by refus- ing to recognize it as a permanent monument when in fact it is used as such would be q calamity. In all proper ease, this court will feel bound to so recognize such sy>tem and support claims fairly described in accordance therewith.
 The description in question is based upon that system of locat ng and de- ecribing the boundaries Of mines IL is de-crihed as claim No. }. loca ed on stream known as Luln creek Ca tribu- tary of Iron ceek), in the Gt lden Gate mining district. territory of Ala ka. and particularly descriled as follows Beginning at initial stake. at east end of c'a m No. ?: thence and then fol. lowing pla n line of permanent slakes around the premises to the DC int of be. ginning. It is apparent from this tie 10 the initial stake on the east end oi No. that the claim was part of a general system of locatirg claims or Lulu CT eek, etber above discovery or No. ]. The initial stake is situated on the east end of claim No. ,, and there is no evidence to show that claim No. ? is not we'll known natural object or permanent monument. There is no evidence to inform the court that the system beginning with discovery or No. is not such well known sys ten of surveys and locations that the mine in question cannot he easily and certainly located thereby. Nor is there any evidence to show that with the no tice before him a miner could not by beginning at the initial stake, at the east end of No. ?, readily trace the boundaries from stake to stake along the courses from the point of beginning back to that point. Martin. who came upon the ground thirty-one days later than the senior locator, seems to have been able tp find all of Marple's stakes. for he sets his side by side with them.
 In the leading cases decided by the supreme court of the United States, Judge Field has laid down this broad rule:
 "These provisions, as appear on their face, are designed to secure q definite description-une so plain that the claim can be readily asco rtained. A reference to some natural oh. ect or permanent monument is named for that purp 'se. Of course, the section means when such reference can be made.