Gunnison news-champion and tribune., 1905-06-30
Aeassaas 01ni.s 0snni.nl

Cesrt q. xhss tosaix lseye ~ss read
eEee = very smFEsant ascssson ~
the tosrz N she case IT the fnsensx
Asnsl.s and Allllns Cou.pany pi.aa-
~. AGAINST the P.ksa Goid kick
NsnsnS and Eedscs.o9 Compasy
essfeaaen;- The s~es;soa Involved.
s.izhough u sas sssrn ps~srd upn
t.ssisse hy the courss had newer hsss
bcfsrs zpy ct the coUrts AZ shss sssc-
ton 1T tbs state The dsscsssoa - .
sell considered 0sa and ,s sastaaDsd
bs authority .ad ,s correct IN pssa-
clylc The qacsaioa involved Wss
whether or not pateutee te unsnsnG
property. where hs has maintained
hls monuments oa the groand aSd
~bere there was variance hetweea
the call IN the patent and the pona-
ments on the ground could hold the
prolertv The substance aud eGec4
of the decision ss that where . patty
obtains q patent t. mining proIsssy
and there H. variance between tAe
calls IA his patent and the mops-
meu,s on the ground, # he would
protect his rights 10 the property he
must maintain his moDumenis and
. If he does 50 the calls in the patent
must weld TO the monuments ON the
cr0apd. IT oR the other hand he
fails 10 maintain his monuments and
the calls in his patent are wrong he
will be releeated 10 those calls and
# perchaDce the calls IN the patent
cover other patented ground upon
which monuments have been maIn-
tanned he will get nothing by his
patent and the grant Of The Govern
meut will fail In the early SOS in
Gunnison county and in other sec
tlous of the State there were employ
ed Incompetent surveyors who did
not know how 10 either survey the
ground or define IT on paper and the
result was that IN many instances
there was a wide difference between
the property described in the patent
and that actually located and staked
'i tut SIouHu anu TINS tNfluititH lB
likely to be fruitful to litigation
This decision reflects great credit
upon the ability of Judge Stevens as
a lawyer and urist and the case af-
fords precedent which will be fol-
lowed The text Of the oral opinion
is given below
State Of Colorado, Gunnison
County, IS. In the district court
The Phoenix Mining and Milling
Company, Plaintiff, VS.. The Pitkin
Gold Belt Mining and Reduction
Company, Defendent,
Oral Decision of the Court, Rem
dered April 26, 1905, at the close of
the trial
This 10 the first case Of the kind
that hss been before this court, and
the court has been under some disa-
bility in the trial Of the case for the
reason that the Law governing the
facts was not fixed in the mind of the
court before the trial began. And
for that reason the rulings upon the
objectings that were interposed 70
some OF the evidence sought TO be
introduced, and which in fact was
introduced, were reserved until the
trial was finished. The court is sat
isfled now as to what the rulings
should be on those matters. and the
objections that were interposed tothe
evidence will de overruled, and the
evidence admitted and considered in
the case.
The evidence shows that patent
was obtained upon the Bonanza
Queen and Buckeye Chief lodes in
1854, and that in 1903 Receivers
receipt was issued upon the Sham
rock. The evidence also shows that
the courses and distances as called
for in the patents for the Buck eve
Chief and the Bonanza Queen lodes
were at variance with the monu-
ments on the ground; and that the
Shamrock lode, when located, took
up great portion of the ground in
tended to be included within the
boundaries of the Bonanza Queen
and Buck eye Chef.
In the case of Cullicot VS.. The
Cash Gold and Silver Mining Com
pany our supreme court, ] think, has
very clearly laid down the rule that
where there is variance between
the monuments on the ground and
the courses and distances as set out
IN the patent, the monuments, if,
kept up with a reasonable degree Of
certainty, will control ! must con
fess that | went into this trial of the
case with different view Of what the
law ought to be.
There is no question but what. 80
far as the Buckeye Chief is con
a