The Nome nugget., 1901-09-10
Judge Wicksrsbam's Opinion
 in, 6 Mining Case.
BRIEF AND TO POINT
The Case Involved a Glacier Creek Bench Claim and Was Entitled "The Mongolion Exploration Co. Against Richards, Stewart and Others.

The case of the Monglolon Explor- ation Company and Helen w. Kimball against Richards. Stewart and others, which was transferred to Cnalaska. by reason of the disability of Judge Moves to try the case. he having at one time been interested in the company, was decided by Judge Wickersham in favor of the Mongollon people. Howard X Griffin and C. Pickler represented the plaintiffs and F. (. Sullivan the de- fendants.
 A motion for new trial was denied.
 Following is the full text of Judge Wickersham's opinior, which is tn Q first ever rendered in the trial of mining case in this judicial district:
 It appears from the undisputed and admitted facts in this case that J. D. Morgan was d competent person to and did on May 18th, 1899, locate the mine in question. It is admitted that he made discovery of gold. staked, mark ed the boundaries and made and filed his location notice and caused it to be re- corded within the, time fixed by law.
 It appears from the evidence. without (oubt, that he transferred all his inter- ,.St in the claim to the plaintiffs and their associates, and that by his deed of March 18th, 1901, he divested himself of the last part of the title. It is shown, without doubt, by the testimony that the grantees of Morgan in possession, did the necessary annual labor for the year of 1900: in fact did work in devel- Oping the claim to the amount of twen- ty-tive hundred dollars ($2500.OO); that is now conceded by the defendant, but the objection is made that no proof of such service was ever filed with the re- corder and recorded in his records.
 While the record of such proof is a step to be commended and ought to be taken by careful mine-owners, the law does not make failure to record such proof a cause of fOrfeiture.and the court will not Such record is not required to be made by section l5 of the Act. of Congress of June 9th, 1900, nor by any other act. While very slight testimony was offered to show that it is the custom to ecord such proof in the Cape Nome mining district, it is wholly insufficient as basis for the forfeiture of rights solemnly acquired by the statute and by deed in good faith.
 Then tine grantees of Morgan, by the annual labor in l9OO had such a vested interest in the placer claim in question, by full and complete compliance with all the requirements of the United States mining laws, that the said mine was wholly segregated thereby from the public domain, was in the actual use and occupation of grantees as such mine, was appropriated and was not open to relocation in February, 1901, when Rich ards made his attempt to locate it and his relocation was wholly void and of no effect. He was merely a trespasser upon the private property of the plain tltfs and their associates and acquired no rights by such location.
 His claim to the possession as a gran tee of J. D. Morgan is equally without justification. His deed from Morgan Is dated and was made, signed and de- livered on July 3rd, 1901, was so made long after Morgan had in good faith and for,a valuable consideration sold all his interests in the mine to plaintiffs and their associates. Morgan then had nothing to convey. It appears clearly that Richards had knowledge of the former conveyance by Morgan and that he paid no consideration for his pre- tended title. It was mere speculative conveyance. If he succeeded in de- feating the just and legal rights of the owners he agreed to do right" as he says, by Morgan. Beach says he agreed to recOnvey One-quarter interest to Mor- gan in case he succeeded in his specu- IatiOn.
 Richards pretended deed from Mor- gan was void because without cOnsi der atiOn, and as an attempt to defraud a prior innocent purchaser for value, even if it can be dignlted 50 far.
 Sections 98, ll9, l2Q, Carter's Code, pp. 373, 377.
 Some ob teetinn is5 made by the defend ant to the form Of some of the convey ances upon which the titles of plaintiffs rest. but this is a mining claim and il was in the sole and undIsputed possess ion of the plaintiffs and their associates at the time when defendants first lay claim to it, and no mere formal defect in the conveyances would justify them in locating 1t under the mining law; nor are such defects. if any such exist, sutfi- cient to enable them to enforce spec ulative. fraudulent title against enc ac- lured in good faith and for full value.
 An attack is also made on one link of plaintiffs title as q forgery: 1 am satis- fled beyond the slightest doubt that the document was signed byJ. D. Morgan in person, and is good and valid docu- nent. . .~----
 Judgment will be. entered upon the | indin%s for the plaintiff.
 JAMES WICKERSHAM,