The Chitina leader. [volume] (Chitina, Alaska) 1910-1928, 1914-04-14

taken until Wednesday, as there are
! a few motions and incidental mat
tiers yet to be disposed Of. This
morning a number of orders were
entered concerning the mining cases
that have been at issue. This after
noon the jurors were all discharged
and received their fees from the
marshal's office.
Court was called for March 3rd,
at Cordova and has been continu-
ously in session since then, except
for ten-day recess awaiting the
arrival of certain witnesses re-
quired by both parties.
There were sixteen Shushanna
cases on the calendar. The de-
PENDANTS in all these cases were the
original locators of the ground. The
plaintiffs were those who had made
later locations, claiming the frs,
locations to be invalid for various
reasons. Twelve of the disputed
locations were made by power of
attorney, and it was claimed that
these we're invalid because the
power of attorney had not been re-
corded prior to stalking the ground.
The defendants were mostly pio-
neers in the White River region,
some of them having been there for
10 hII4 oil IF TO
from Dawson and White Horse as
their base of supplies. They were
in the Shushanna before the arrival
of H. E. Morgan, whom Judge
Overfield appointed last May as the
recorder of the new White River
precinct.
The three most important law
questions were all decided by Judge
Brown favorably to the defendants
Every verdict rendered by the jury
was also in favor of the defendant.
1t was thus again demonstrated that
the first locator of a mining claim
has every advantage in court. The
second locator rarely triumphs
where the good faith of the first
locator is shown in reasonable
effort to comply with the law.
The three important law PROPOSE
tions decided by Judge Brown were,
first, that the power of attorney
need not be recorded under the
Wickersham act prior to stalking,
but that the location is valid if the
power of attorney be recorded and
all the acts of location completed
before the rights of the secon /
locator intervene
Secondly, in the. particular case
of Woodman VS.. Erikson, the powe.
of attorney from Erikson, the frs,
locator, was not recorded in the
White River precinct until aftel
Woodman had staked the ground,
but Erikson's discovery was made
and his other acts of location were
completed first, and Erikson had
also recorded his power of attorney
in the Forty Mile district before the
ground was even staked for him.
The transcript of the Forty Mile
records, including the Erikson
power of attorney, was made a part
of the White River records by order
of court entered last May, and hence
the defendant contends that the
Erikson power of attorney is valid
record in the White River district
from the time it was recorded in the
Forty Mile district.
The third proposition decided by
Judge Brown involved certain de-
fective records made by the White
River recorder. His books had not
yet arrived from the outside, so in
stead of copying the documents at
length, he simply made a memoran-
DUN of each document as recorded
| The court held such record suffi-
cient, and that the locator suf1i-
GENTLY complied with the law when
he deposited his document with the
proper recorder, and paid the re-
cording fee, and was not responsible
for any errors or defeets:'in the work
of recording. The opinion of Judge
Brown on this point was published
in full in the Daily Alaskan
/ The cases were tried and disposed
of as follows:
Likaits VS.. James was tried twice,
the jury disagreed on the first trial,
but on the second trial found a ver-
dict for the defendant.
Sutherland VS.. I. Purdy. Verdict
for the defendant. -" This case will
be appealed.
ClOninger VS.. Finlaison. The
court granted defendants motion
for non-suit and judgment was
entered for the defendant. In this
case it is announced that an appeal
will be taken.
Woodman VS.. Erikson. Judgment
was given the defendant upon the