The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1908-08-03
Eureka Mining Suit Decision
Judge Breen Renders Opinion Many Interesting Points of
Law That Game Up in the Beehive Mining Case

H. X. Mitchell, ntervenor.
On the 18th day of October 1906 named plaintiffs
brought suit against the defendants Pardy and Briefly
possession Of the Fanny mining claim situate Eureka mining
district Eureka County, Nevada which possession alleged
in the complaint defendants wrongfuy and unawy withheld
from them To obtain equitable relief separate Of action
plaintiffs their unlawful entry into
the Fanny claim had extracted and dug large quantity of
and then engaged and threatened continue
do the subsa,e of the EARTH said "Tha
extracted and then dump
value, which the defendants by their agents. and
oyes intend and threaten to and will from said mine
less restrained by order of this the epaabe injury of
plaintiffs, etc"
Defendants answered due time, denying all the material
allegations of the complaint themselves the ownership
of the ground covered by the Fanny bag their ownership
location of said ground under the of the Beehive claim
located by defendant Pardy July o. 1898 The prayed for
the usual relief temporary injunction granted asked for
When the first called for trial it admitted in open
by counsel that the Beehive having been located prior the
Fanny the only ground the plaintiffs had to rely in support Of
their contentious that Pardy the locator of the Beehive
the time of making his location Deputy u Mineral Surveyor
and such could not make for himself valid location of mineral
land the United that involving the question
then pending before the Supreme Court of the State from Lin
coin County and continuance asked for pending decision of
the last named
In October 1907, the Supreme Court in Hand Cook 92
Pac held that Deputy Mineral Surveyor could make for
himself valid mineral location, and this holding practically settled
adversely plaintiffs the only question involved in the suit
February 1908 Henry X Mitchell by leave of the Court
filed his petition Intervention erein and subsequently amend
entitled possession the Sam Tden situate in afore
district county State located by his ganto March g.
1889 That defendants wronguy and unawfuy entered upon
Tden about September 1906 and wrongfuy
unawy extracted thoem of the value of $500 and
claim the their property by virtue of their mining location
that mine known and called the Beehive located July
81 That plaintiffs claim the and land the ground
that the taken from their mine known as and called the
Fanny, located March 8, 1899
ntervenor denied plaintiffs defendants the
entitled the possession part of the Sam Tden
asked for relief against both plaintiffs and defendants
Tiden the ground as the Fanny and the
greater part of the Beehive location
It was stated considered that Prdy alone interested
as this Briefly having been at the time of the
the aser of the ground his lease has long
since expired
The defendant Pardy permitted file and second
amendment to his original answer
The case was called for 90 1908 The Court be-
eving equitable rights mpaneed jury
advisory the Court Upon calling the case Tor trial. Gibson
original plaintiffs personally court abandoned
theeupon counsel for defendant Pady moved Tor
and obtained judgment of dismissal and for costs against SAID
plaintiffs between the ntervenor MITCHELL and
defendant Pady At the of the special findings of
submitted to the the part of the respective
parties instructed they could in their discretion
general special verdict but that should they find general
verdict they find upon the special facts submitted to
them jury general verdict for the defendant Par
the special findings found fully in his favor all
points Many interesting points for discussion
during Of the the contentious respective counsel
which were is regretted mainly supported by individual
assertion rather than by citation accepted authority
or appoyed precedent findings by the being in the
opinion of the supported the evidence they by it
adopted and only question which will be considered in this
opinion dimensions of the mining claim to which the
defendant to be entitled
The Sam Tden 1860 feet long by 200 feet In width
and relocation formerly known the Grndston
mine long since The Beehive rreguariy OF
perhaps been surpassed except by the stone
claim in Iron Silver Co. Egn Mng Co., lis u s. 1885, known
as the Horseshoe According to nevenors exhibit ana
defendants exhibit maps diagrams the ntervenor very
the incorrect the Beehive has NIX sides or
no equal dimensions and the sides or
oursas 10 the west zpzag in place somewhat like forked
lightning the greater part OF the Sam Ide
testified by Pad vacant fractions ground 70 h
west of the claim bounded by the Y gag nes