OCR Text |
Show A FINDING FOR FERRY. The Celebrated Conflict Betwean the Northland and North Pole Winds Up. TH3 LOCATION A VALID ONE, The Consolidated and Perego at Park City Lock Horns -Other Mining Contests. The ease of William 1'. Ferry vs. Andrew An-drew Lundin, in which the Northland and North Pole mining claims at Park City were involved, was decided by Judge Zane upon the opening of court this morning, it was held that the location lo-cation of the Northland was valid and to the plaintiff was awarded an undivided undi-vided one-half interest in the conflict area. ," ' .... In handing down his opinion Judge Zane reviewed the issue' at considerable consider-able length. "In 12," said he, 'Lundin 'Lun-din located the Northland mining claim and at the time of the location of the Norm Pole. Lundin agreed with Jerry to convey to him an undivided One-half interest in theclaimr The deed fias made on June 11. In July, J'""' app'i'ion for patents were made IV" ' on both claims but the Northland was numbered ."i!J! and the, North Polo KOO.1 F.ont thit it is inferred that tho North- land was of prior location. Tho North Pole tiled an adverse claim in whioh tho plaintili sets up that half of the area in conflict is vested in him. The description descrip-tion of a claim is stated in distances, courses, monuments, etc. The rule is that the monuments must control and that being so the court is of the opinion that plaintili' is entitled to part of tho area in question ami the fact that he lias cited more ground than that to which lie is actually entitled does not invalidate the adverse. The court read from the statute governing locations the same to be identified by natural objects or monuments. A post set firmly :u the ground, be ruled, might be recognized as a permanent object ami answer the requirements re-quirements ot the law. Tile evidence in this case was somewhat contacting as to the posts on ttiu claim some tes-tif tes-tif vine that they were, down and others that they had been replace I. The surveyor sur-veyor general hiiuseli made the survey and the .supreme court, would scarcely be disposed to nullify the location of the Northland after ten years of work had been done upon it. The claim was worked as early as VI and while plaintiff plain-tiff did not see tho parties the dump was there as a notice. Under thpse ciicuuistaiices 1 shall bold the loeatiou valid. The deed from Lundin to Ferry for one-haif interest was made in July, 1H5 and under that plaintiff is entitled to an undivided one-half in the claim and one-half of the conflict area. The ether case of Ferry vs. Lundin was continued, Judge Powers mentioning mention-ing that there was a possibility of its being dismissed. In the case of David Keefe et al vs. Andrew An-drew Lundin et al, Judge Dickson gave notice that plaintiffs having neglected certain requirement!! of the law, they would r.baiidoQ the action and a nonsuit non-suit was entered. The notion involved the llainmondville and Nevada ciainis at I'.iik City. Tho ease of Perego vs. Lundin was continued for tbe term and that of William Wil-liam i'erego vs. W.1I. Dodge, involving a conflict between the Consolidated and Perego, was taken up and proceeded pro-ceeded with. It is now on trial. Look at Deskey'g second addition. |