Deseret Evening News | 1906-01-13 | Page 2 | Stirring Dispute over Mining Claim

STIRRING DISPUTE OVER MINING CLAIM The court today down don an nn opinion reversing the Julio Judg Judgment ment uncut of or line lower 10 court In lii the tho th case of ot Maty lul appellant against Isaac lalI Hodes s and granting a new trial of ot the tho Case Tho rho was Willi brought to eject defendant trout from II n portion of ot the Julia mining claim damn In nail and the low loll lower lower er 11 court fourt rendered a n decree In favor ot or defendant antI and ordered plaintiff to ex cuto euto ii fI deed deeni tine the property In III dispute to defendant def Tine The Iw defendant contended I that thai ho pitr the this surface ground of ot the tho daunt claim front from the thc husband of ot plaintiff and lili liis hi partner anti and thuit he lie occupied the lam sanh for a It residence anti and wan n a cotenant with plaintiff It U appears that the tho us ins n work im III fl the claim was wan done tone during the year 1131 1 so 10 III In January ISO IS Mrs Helstrom relocated the tine property nail mid In July O secured IL to tu It The ihie defendant dammed claimed that plaintiff relocated the property for tor the Iho benefit of or her Iner husband anti and hence she nhe held hell th Ih the title to defendants portion of or the sur stirS face lice rights In tru trust t for Cor or defendant Tha TIun ourt lurt sustained this contention and nind rendered a decree decre In favor ra Clr of or da d In iii lieu her ht appeal U I the plaintiff claimed d that the 8 and decree were not I by b tho tine evidence and the thc su eu supreme preme court sustains this contention The opinion of or the court holds that the evidence did not wino that Mrs Ir lIel Itel strum strom relocated the he claim for Cor her hUM bus husband band banal or for tor nn ont rise else be but hut herself und ninth there them was Wits no in evidence that shin shu wa wet a it cotenant with defendant the Thc defendant knew that she he had relocated tine the Ih claim but bitt made no rn effort to 10 secure it I title to the land purchased by 11 y him i Hence he h has hu no claim to 10 possession 1 lon of ot the am satin Mme or for compensation for or the made anode by lIy him him on the thi th The rhe judgment nt of or the lower lover court Is U reversed r d d and a new n trial grant granted ed and Hi the coots coats or f t appeal taxed 1 defendant Justice Ju tir wrote the opinion of ot the court Iut which Is II eon cnn nn In by br Chief Justice Marten MIJ Justice McCarty