The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-09-18
mitted in evidence, marked Plaintiffs
exhibit "a"
..OTICE OF LOCATION e. QUARTZ
CLAIM

-SOTlCE OF LOCATION -. QUARTZ
CLAIM.
Notice is hereby given to all whom
1t may concern: That James Ennis,
S. Fox, L. T. Oddie, c. Schmidt, citi-
zens of the United States, over the
age of twenty'one years, having dis
covered vein or lode of quartz, or
rock in place, bearing ..............
within the limits of the claim herein
located, have this day under and in
accordance with the Revised Statutes
and other laws of the United States,
located 1900 linear feet of this vein
or lode, with surface ground 600 feet
in width, situated in Grandpa Mining
District, County of Esmeralda. State
of Nevada, and known as the Ram
sey ext. quartz mining claim, and
extending ...... feet to anu
....... feet. ...... from this notice
.....,at the discovery or prospect
shaft, the exterior boundary of this
claim icing distinctly marked by ref
erence to some chiect cr permanent
monuments, and more particularly de-
scribed as follows, to wit: Com
mencing from this location monument
and running 800 feet southerly and
IL, feet northerly direction. And
we intend to hold and work said claim
as provided by the local customs and
rules Of miners and the mining stat
utas Of the United States.
Dated on the ground this 2Sth day
CT May, 1903.
Attest JAMES EN..IS.'
In considering the question wheth-
CT the evidence produced by the plain
tiff5 was sufficient 10 establish the
facr CT a discovery by them upon the
Ramsey Extension claim, it must be
understood that the evidence is to be
tested by the rules governing in the
case OF rival claimants to the same
mining ground, taken in connection
with the iberality with which evil
dence is construed il favor of plain
tifTs or motion for non SUIT.
Upon the latter proposition. this
court in the case Of Patchen V. Kelly,
l9. New. 400. had occasion to say. In
considering the courts ruhng in
granting the non suit we must take
, as proven every fact which the plain
tiff's evidence ended 10 prove and
5 which was essential to his recovery
ana give him the benefit Of all legal
Prescriptions arising from ne eyi
= dence"
We also quote with approval the FOL
.. lowing language Of the Supreme
/ Court OF California in the case q
4 han1y y California Bridge Co, u,
4 Cal, 237.
i The motion for non-sGit admits
K tns truth Of the plaintiff ; evidence
I ana every inference CT fact that ca
O y leeijjma ely drawn therefrom anC
!. 5uCG such motion the evidence
= ---t..t ha most strongly interpreted
. .-a,ua, HI dctendants. This Iul
G mist DE applied &c All tlse evidence
n ~ m.tted by plaintiff"
/. n NigeCn :. Montana Cent. Ry. Co.
a II Fed. 254 . c. c. A. 161, the Unitet
K States Circuit Court OF Appeals. il
2 an coiniOn written by Judge Hawley
: points out in the following name
J. the distinction that exists in variou.
d classes OF cases. upon the question
9 OF the proof that will be required tt
It establish a discovery. There ar
< four classes Of cases where the court
If have been called upon to determin
- what constitutes a lode or vein with
II IL the intent Of different sections c
10 The Revised Statutes. % Betwee
Is miners who have located claims o
r. the same lode under the provisions {
O. section 1920 u. S. Comp. St. 1870
in p. 1920; (Z) between placer an
~ lode claimants under the provision
of section 1888 (U. S. Comp. ST. $50
:: p. 1880; 60 between mineral CLAIM
| ants and parties holding townsite pa
w ents to the same ground; ca betwee
m mineral and agricultural claimants I
r. the same land. The mining laws
Ok the United States were drafted Il
III the purpose of protecting the bona fid
ut locators of mining ground, and at IL
ne same time to make the necessary pr
as vision as to the rights Of agriculturis
wv and claimants to townsite -ands. TT
We object of each section, and of Il
a whole policy o. the entire statut
he should not be overlooked. The pa
OK ticular character of each case nec5
err sarily determines the rights Of Il
on respective parties, and must be Ike
~ constantly in view, in order to e
he able the court to arrive at a CORE
i conclusion. What is said in o.
M character of cases may or may not
ay applicable in the other. Whatev
on variance, if any, may oe found in t
DIV views expressed in the different {
au- cisions touching these questiO
10 arises from the difference in the ch:
ad acter of the case and the advanc
on knowledge which experience fin t
%. trial of the different kinds OF cas-
" brings to the court.
- The fact is that there is a subst;
MS tial difference in the object and p
y. icy of the law between the cas-
~ where the determination OF the gu
IN ton as to what constitutes the {
- covery of vein or lode betwe
~. different claimants Of the same 10
nat under section 1920 Gu. S. Comp.
1901, p. 1920, on the one hand, q
a lode known to exist within the l
it's OF placer claim at the time
-, plicatiOn is made for patent the
.n for under section 1888 Gu. S. Coz
~ 1901. p. 1889, on the other
The question as to what c
stitutes a discovery of vein or Il
80 under the provisions of section 2
@ ~,