Iditarod pioneer., 1914-07-25
Concluded from Page One)

property were arrested ana cnaTgeu Witn criminal trespass, together with Angus Me Donald John Ratio and Charles krutslnger, who did not appear in this action. On the trial of the trespass case Tn the commls- sioner's court the defendants were acquitted on the ground that the prosecuting witness, Thomas P Atken, had not proven his or the Yukon Gold Companys title to the ground The decision created some excite ment and resentment ln certain circles and an indignation meeting was held at DlscoV- cry, Otter at which a telegram was or dered sent to Judge Fuller demanding the removal of the commissioner at ldltarod.
 After their acquttal on the trespass charge, Adams and Knox brought suit for possession of the property, alleging that they were wrongfully eJected and prevented from going upon the ground in dispute. A receiver was also asked for the ground pending the determination of the suit, which was denied.
 In its answer to the complaint of Adams and Knox, the Yukon Gold Company 7, 1913 the date on which the alleged Spikenard location was made, Price and Aitken were the owners of the ground in question, and that the same was under lease to the Yukon Gold Company, and that the plaintiffs were trespassers, The com pany asked judgment declaring that Price and Aitken were the owners of the ground and that it was legally in the possession of the Yukon Gold Company under lease and for S10,000 exemplary damages.
 The Trial Begins
 Over the strenuous objections of the plaintiffs, who pleaded for more time ln order to give Wm. Knox time to recover from his illness, and to await the arrival of their chief counsel, the case went to trial on Wednesday morning Contrary to general anticipation, but little difficulty was experienced in securing a jury, and at 3 D. m. A. E. Maltby, for the plaintiffs made the opening statement to the jury.
 Counsel for the plaintiffs read the com plaint and stated that he would prove every allegation contained therein, and ex- pected the jury to award possession of the property to plaintiffs, together with S2,OOO damages.
 Mr McGinn. for the defense, outlined the matters set forth in the answer to the complaint, and stated that the defendants would prove the location of the Chicago Bench on February 10, 1910, the filing of the location notice, the transfer to Price X Aitken that various kinds of work had been done on the claim in the years 1910, 1911 and 1912; that on May 15, 1912, the Yukon Gold Company entered into possession un- der its lease They would prove that in that year the company had expended money in preparatory work, and two months prior to plaintiffs' alleged location it had thawed ground thereon and expended money ln other work which he detailed, They would show that on October s. 1913, Mir. Austin, the manager for the Gold Company, saw Adams working on the claim, and that on the same date Aitken posted trespass mo- tices; that on February II, 1914, plaintiffs had attempted to amend their location notice to include the paystreak on the claim. which had not been included in their original location notice.
 Adams on the Stand
 Sam C. Adams one of the plaintiffs, was the first witness called h answer to ques tions bv counsel he stated that he and Knox had located the Spikenard association claim on October :, 1913, and detailed the work done in connection with the location. He told of his tools being removed during his temporary absence from the claim and of bringing them back and reSumng work He told of certain work, such as the digging of ditch and open cut, and having the as sistance of Knox and Mcdonald, This work continued up to the 18th of October when he was arrested, with others, charged with criminal trespass He did not go back to the claim until November, when the foreman for the Gold Company, with oth CTS, forced them off the claim. Knox and Mcdonald went back to complete the loca tion and assessment work. He identified a CODY of the location notice, which was of fered in evidence.
 On cross-examination by MT McGinn he stated that he came to this district in De cember, 1910, and had lived on Flat creek ever since He knew almost every claim on Flat creek He did not know when he first saw the stakes of the Chicago Bench. He became acquainted with the clam Tn January, 1912 He was questioned closely by Mr. McGinn regarding his knowledge of the location stakes of various claims, and was asked to identify photos and also as to certain measurements. Asked whether or not he staked the claim at night, he stated it was at 6 a. m. He stopped at a tent on the ground, for which he got permission from a Mir. Callahan He was asked why he did not get permission from MT. Austin, but said he did not know MT. Austin had any interest in it. Knox and himself com menced work at 80 or , o'clock a. m. on October 7, digging shaft; he would work ten minutes and Knox would work ten minutes That was long enough asked Mir McGinn facetiously. Further questions intimated that the work was done in the dark of the early morning hours to avoid having people see him.
 At 1 :35 adjournment was taken until Thursday morning, with Adams still on the stand.
 Cross-Examination Resumed
 When the court assembled on Thursday morning the cross examination of Adams was resumed MT. McGinn questioned him closely as to corner stakes and distances. A map of the contested ground and adJoln- ing claims was introduced in testimony by the defense and Adams was asked to verify certain objects indicated thereon. Adams had testified the day previous that he had seen thawing operations on the Chicago Bench on October 7. He addressed the court and stated that he had misunderstood tho CunSt;op the th aUinp was on the Wild