Iditarod pioneer., 1914-08-01

plaintiff is the owner of or in possession of said property; deny that their interest and claim to the property Is invalid or that 1t Is inferior to the alleged ownership of the plaintiff. They set up as an affirmative defense that since April 10, l9O9 defend ants have and now are owners in fee, sub ect to the paramount possession ot the United States, in sole and exclusive posses sion of the claim known as the Prospector association claim; that said Prospector claim contains within its boundaries that land described by plaintiffs as the Anaconda Fraction and Anaconda No. 2 that plaintiff has no right, title or estate in or to said Prospector association claim, or any part thereof They pray judgment that plaintiff is not entitled to the property described in the complaint or any part thereof; that defendants are the owners in possession and entitled to possession Of the premises de scribed in their answer and that they re- cover costs and disbursements of the ac tlOn.
 Plaintiffs Reply
 Plaintiff in reply to defendants answer denies each and every allegation in para graphs l, and 3 of defendants further answer" and affirmative defense" and fur ther alleges that the Prospector claim re ferred to in said affirmative answer con tains more than 160 acres, to wit, 1S7 acres, more or less, and that defendants, with full knowledge of said excess neglected and re fused to cast off said excess, and that as to said excess any claim that defendants may have had as to ground within sald Pros pector location was null and void, and that after waiting a considerable time for de fendants to cast off said excess, plaintiff located fifteen acres more or less, of said excess in the locations alleged in plaintiffs complaint; further, that the Prospector was fraudulently located by the original owners, for the reason that there was an under standing between certain of the persons whose names were used as locators that in consideration of their being named as To- cators in said claim they would deed to defendants Beaton and Dikeman an undl vided half of each of their interests in said claim, and that thereafter they did so deed an undivided one half of their interests, and that Dikeman and Beaton each received more than an undivided one eighth interest in said claim.
 The Testimony
 Sam c. Adams, the plaintiff was the first witness called He testified to the location by himself on May 23, 1911, of the Ana conda fraction, and as to the various acts in connection with such location. He told of work he had done, and of letting lay on the ground, and of the recording of as sessment work He related that later he received notice from the Yukon Gold Con- pany that he was trespasser on the prem lses.
 On cross examination by Henry Roden, he was asked in regard to the stakes of the Prospector association, to which objection was made by counsel for the plaintiff.
 At the conclusion of Adams testimony MT. McGinn, for the defense, moved dis missal of the action, with prejudice against plaintiff, on the ground that the allegations contained in the complaint had not been proven, and that witness had testified to seeing A. A. Chittick at work on the ground, which tended to show possession of the property by the owners of the Prospector claim. The motion was denied.
 The defense then called John Beaton to the stand. He said he was on the ground in question in September 1908, and testi- fled to stalking the Prospector claim in 1909 with William Dikeman and as to the par ties interested with them. Various ques- tions in regard to location of stakes and adjoining properties were answered by him.
 Location notice, notices of annual assess