The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-09-18
c. F. REYNOLDS,
Attorney for Appellant.
VERMiLYEA e. BARTLETT,
Attorneys for Respondent.

ms IS an action OF eJeCl1uonl u
recover possession of certain mining
claim in the Goldfield Mining District.
Esmeralda county. Upon the trial
Of the cause in the court below. at
ter plaintiffs had offered their evil
dence counsel for respondents inter-
posed motion for a nonsnit. The
motion was granted and Judgment en-
tered accordingly. Plaintiffs appeal
from the judgment and from an or
der denying their motion for a new
trial
The allegations Of plaintiffs com
plant. which are material in the con
sideratiCn Of the questions presented
upon this appeal. are substantially as
follows:
THAI On the 2Srh day Of May. 1898,
the said plaintiff. Carl Schmidt, for
himself and OF behalf Of the other OF
said plaintiffs. located, in accordance
with he mining laws. a certain min
ing claim in Gcidfield Mining District,
by erecting thereon location mOnu
mCnt, and posting location notice
therein. naming and designating said
claim as the Ramsey Extension;
that on The 2Gth day of August, 1903,
while the plaintiffs We're III lawful
possession OF said claim, the defend
ants wrongfully. Unlawfullv and fraud
uentlv entered into and upon said
mining claim, and biz their wrongful,
unlawful and fraudulent acts did Dust
and eject the plaintiffs from the pos
session OF said mining claim, and
ever since said time have continued
to so wrongtully, unlawf;illy and fraud
l. 1.,s, -
plaintiffs: that on the said Goth day
Of August 1903, the said plaintiff
Fox, for and on behalf of himself and
the other of said plaintiffs, did go
upon said mining claim to complete
the location of the same, in accord
ance with the requirements of law,
but was prevented from so doing by
reason of the aforesaid wrongful acts
Of defendants.
The defendants answer consists Of
specific denial of each of the al
legations Of the complaint.
The principal question presented in
this case and the only one argued by
counsel for respondents. is whether
the evidence offered and admitted was
sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to re
cover under the Dleadings.
The trial court. in ruling unon the
motion for a new trial. held that the
plaintiffs had failed to show thai
they had made a discovery upon which
a mining location could be based.
AS the question wnether tFler,
was any evidence upon the part o
the plaintiffs establishing or tendn:
TO establish a discovery as basis
for the location of the mining CLAIM
called the Ramsey Extension" la
been the only material question con
sidered by counsel upon both sides
the evidence will be reviewed SOlel
with reference to this one question.
Excluding all reference to matter
clearly irmaterial. the followino i
substantially the testimony admitte
upon the trial.
T. L. Oddie, one of the plaintiff:
testified rs follows:
81 know Samuel Fox. James Enni
and Carl Schmidt. l know the mil
ing district called Grandpa. nov
called and known as Goldfield Mir
ing District" l know the greater pal
of the land in controversy in this a
ton Mr. Fox. Mr.. E]
mis-, Mr.. Schmidt and myself wei
partners in locating some claims
that district. Either in May or
short time afterwards. l paid the :
lenses of Mr.. Schmidt to the Gran
pa Mining District. NJ
Schmidt brought me some rock
have it assayed. had the rock d
sayed, and Mr.. Schmidt came to Il
Office afterward to learn the ass;
@. About when was tn
location made? A.
know it W. in the spring o. 19(
l think it was about in May. Q.
the original location notice should S.
the 28th of May, would that be abo
correct? A. Yes. sir, as far as
know. know the d
PENDANT, Beauchamp. knew hi
On or about the 28th day of May. 19(
Some little time after that l had
conversation with Beauchamp in n
ONCE. The question in regard
this suit came up, and Mr.. Beauchan