Iditarod pioneer., 1913-11-01

another similar case and glvlng hlm au- thority to change the place of trial. He granted change of venue in the case of Sam Adams but reversed 1t in a day or so. The first case brought up was the case of Angus McDonald the charge being crim- inal trespass. Various things came up dur ing the trial that were rather amusing Angus Mcdonald claimed that he did not know that he was on the Chicago Bench ; that he didn't see a big pile of wood on the claim; didn't see a lot of machinery that was there and various things, so that if it had been dark night he would have fallen over them, and if it had been day light he would have had to go around them. At the time that Major Albrecht gave his decision he refused to state his reasons for his verdict but stated that if counsel de sired after the other cases had been tired, he would state his reasons for rendering that judgment After the trial he told MT. Stanton his reasons and later from the bench stated that his reasons for acqulttlng Angus Mcdonald were that only two notices had been placed upon the claim, instead of three notices, which are required. The tes- timony showed that four notices were post ed This was later called to his attention,
 
 that four had been posted. It seems to me in rendering judgment on little technical point he should consult his notes or refer to one of the stenographers at the trial. In the cases of krutsinger, Knox and Ratio the charges were similar to those in the Mcdonald case so they were dismissed upon motion of MT. Stanton. Next came the case of Sam Adams. He refused to allow the change of venue and defendant waived his right to jury trial. Evidence was pro duced showing original location but not orl- ginal discovery. It was impossible to prove original discovery, because the original dis cOverers are not in the district and Tn a short space of time 1t would not be possible to get the original discoverers here to prove discovery The original discoverers are in Seattle or elsewhere on the Outside. MT. Albrecht was advised of this fact before we went into court and he said 1t was imma terial We proved that the required amount of assessment work had been done in 1911 and that all deeds had been recorded and that the assessment work for 1912 had been sworn to- The defense made no argument and decision of mot guilty was given for the sCla reason that original discovery had not been proven; therefore there is no such thing as the Chicago Bench Association claim or Chicago claim. We don't care what you cal it-it was originally called the Chicago Bench Association and has been known as the Chicago claim CT Chi cago Bench that Is immaterial. The orlgl- nal stakes are there, and we are in posses sion of that piece of ground and intend to maintain possession of it if we can. Now the point is this Probably going to be trouble in holding possession of this piece of ground We have done considerable work on that claim this year; have wood on the ground and machinery, and good money has been paid for the claim, and we cer- tainly are net going to give 1t up. II We cant keep it by law, think it is up to Us to hold it by force.
 Resolutions having been presented, Hr. Mcdonnell requested that they be read. The original resolutions were then read.
 Mr k!lgore commented on the resolu- tier and was of the opinion that q suDeror court of this district would review the ac- ten of the loc2I court, and did not believe that miners meeting resolutions would bear much weight.
 The chairman explained that this was net 2 miners meeting; that such 8 meeting was unnecessary in a district containing a court fl justice, and that the meeting had been cal ed to discuss the decision in the case in question and to decide upon some actlCn Ii necessary.
 1Ir. Austin referring to Mir kilgores question as to whether it was not up to the Yukon Gold Company and Thomas Ait ken to hold their possessions stated: We are in possession of the claim, but are We going to be required to keep men on the claim from now until next summer, until :uch time as the district court conVenes here? Do we have to keep men On the claim with shctguns, rifles or good, hard fists to keep these jumpers oil? l clam that this is not just. The question of title is case for the district court to decide. These men are criminal treSpa3sers, yet the court here rules that they were not tres passing because there was no such thing as a Chicago Bench claim. There is such hing as the Chicago Bench claim, but are ye going to be required to keep men on 1t to retain possession? In holding 1t there may be trouble and then someone is hurt"
 Mr Bain stated that if he were III Tom Aitkens position he would put guards on the claim.
 MT. lhOrne moved that the TeSOlullGN> be adopted as read.
 Mr. Marston stated that from the testi- mony he had heard he believed the reso- lutions should be supported.
 Mir Bain requested that as the leading men of Iditarod, Flat and Discovery were present, little more discussion take place, so as to give him better understanding of the merits of the case.
 MT kilgore moved that the resolutlnos be laid on the table indefinitely.
 Mir. Peek stated that more discussion would be had before the resolution was acted upon.
 After some discussion Mir. Bain asked as to what benefits were to be expected from the resolutions and to whom they would be addressed
 Mr Seddon suggested that one copy be sent to Judge Fuller and one copy be given to the press.
 MT. Keller stated that he was present at the trial and felt convinced that some ac- ton was necessary, and that he would lend his support to the resolutions.
 MT. Kilgore moved that substitute reso- lutions, in which would be embodied the original resolutions be acted upon.
 Upon request, MT. Kilgore put hls resolu- tions in writing and being seconded, a vote was taken and the resolutions earned unan-