Arizona daily citizen. (Tucson, Ariz. Territory [i.e. Ariz.]) 1884-1901, 1901-03-12
Located a
Claim in BiSbee.

Last Monday morning the residents O
Bisbee, particularly those owning pro
perty on Main street. were thrown into
| fiutter Of excitement on learning that
Thomas A. Tate had made a mining To-
cation on the ground which had beer
covered by the building burned last
May, and lying Immediately west of the
Norton house, and had a man digging
there says the Review. Although monu-
ments had not been put up nor lines
run, it was presumed that it was Mr..
Tate's intention to claim under his loca-
ton, all the valuable ground 10 the east
OF the point where he had put the man
to work up the company's patented
ground. This land is owned by various
parties and is covered by business build
ings bringing in good rents. The land
on which the location notice was posted
and the man was working is owned by
Z. C. Norton, an old and respected citi-
zen of Bisbee.
Mr.. Norton, at about eleven O'Clock
Monday morning, discovered the man
working on his ground and asked him
what he was doing there, and was in
formed tnat Tate had put him to work
there. Mr.. Norton told him that he was
the owner of the land and ordered him
to quit work and get off the ground.
This the man refused to do until he had
received orders TO do 80 from Tate. Mr.
Norton then went TO Tate and asked
him to order the man to quit work. This
Tate refused to do, saying that he had
made a mining location there and pre-
posed to hold it. Mr.. Norton then
swore out a warrant against the man at
work, Ed Conrov, charging him with
trespass and malicious mischief.
The case was tried Tuesday evening
before Justice Wilcox. The court room
vas crowded by an interested audience,
as it Was a matter OF great import
ance, especially TO the property owners
on Main street. Mr.. Norton was reI-
resented By J. NJ. O'Connell, and Con-
roy and Fate by C. T. Clark, a lawyer
who has recently come here from Globe
Mr.. Norton testified that he had pur'
chased the ground and had been in
peaeeable and undisputed possession fer
sixteen years, and that the digging done
by Conroy vas damaging his properts,
as it interfered with plans he had made
for the erection OF large building on
the lot at I'm early day. Mr.. Godfrey, a
neighbor, testified that to his knowledge
Mr., Norton had been in peaeeable pos
session OF the property over twelve
wears, and as to the nature of the exca-
walton made by Conroy. Thomas
Wright, miner. testified that be had
examined the excavation and found q
small mass Of decomposed lime, silica
and porphyry slightly stained with iron,
but no further indications OF mineral.
Another miner testified in n similar
manner as to the character of the lorna.
tion where Conroy had been working.
On Tate's behalf Conroy simply made
the statement that he was put TO work
there by Mr.. Tate. that the ground was
soft and could easily be removed with
pick and shovel, and that his work was
In the nature oi cut into the side OF the
bill. Mr.. Tate testified that he had OBJ
served what he considered indicatiins OF
mineral at the point where he had put
Conroy TO work and he had made min
ing location, believing that he had right
to do 50 under the mining laws. He
stated that the place where the work
was being done was composed Of q mass
OF decomposed lime, porphyry and iron
stained with copper. He had not found
any mineral IN place because he had
been stopped from prosecuting the
search for it.
This closed the testimony and the case
was argued by the attorneys and suit
mitted. Justice Wilcox found ConroY
guilty of trespass and fined him. Notice
Of appeal was Immediately filed. This
is the present status Of the case.
To the Review it looks as though this
was an unwarranted attempt TO grab n
very valuable piece OF ground under a
technicality OF law. 1t is to be hoped
that the upper court will sustain Justice
Wilcox in his just decision and thus a