| Show THE TIB CASE OASE C HH Oj ii of J Court U UI UThe I I II hy 1 The Tb opinion of the t II United hate att su supreme u ume preme me court urt In the lbs t case csar ea of at M 1 Lawson vs va V United States Mining company was waa WI received ave In It Its form orm yesterday by br b attorneys Interested for tor both lades Ides J Although his hl hi name do doe dt tv not nol appear of f records record Col ul E 1 A Wall al was aSa a the tl principal ta Suit WM was I originally brought by b the Ih Bute att company against Walt Wail Wailand and nd others other lo to quiet qui title tit I to 10 canal ore or underneath th the Surface c of or claIms aim of ot the Ih United tI company Wall all allInd Ind associates however the uN iru bodies b belonged 1010 to 0 a vein ell the theu h u ox of if which waa wita W within the Ih mining known af a the tl and Ashland 41 owned own by them The l fI to Uti thu claim that Ih If It I ilu II I h ur urO ura ladies In I question l li ng I i uh u a vein sin In I is i iwas was wal 1 a br ul V I I 11 c I tin I Ii a width of the thc tl apex 1 i IM r I I II hIlt the Ih old lid n nix Mid Mountain l m 01 I 0 hr t longing to u I t 1 t III UI I within the tl claim elini lain of ot Wall Wil and 1 as I that the th of if t th Ih Id Jr J r dan and Mountain Oem Him I wn and d older ohler than Un th If f t the I hr Il Iv Is 1 Ashland although ih I h l lat II m I I i I 1 I i I ISri Sri patented potent The h I 1 l Ol Pany pan iia 11 li I ii II I Ii dI t In n non Would I ike rk Hi II on nn n UN its I dip the Ill i 1 hOI 11 In ln claims claim r I even tn IhlI pert pan v the Wall i lili h hail had Hi ill I 0 11 10 tnt tent tnt In other a rIa rl that di I I f In 1 lion lon not date d of r mi nt 1111 as a to 10 Cairo tri lateral rights wt trl Irl 1 of the W i i 1101 Marshall al t I 1 on lie IM nn in mu 0 1 I ill c I Ivor vor of O Will Wall U ant and HK HII ii I company tralY any rr f r I I 1 hl ti Il l d li h i appeal was w taken aken l I Ill I h nm lilt i l I Ig g 1111 1 pany pa pan to the tb circuit it tiIt i oun oUI t If r I tn rep tor tr the ht t Th Tho i court n rl Versed Judge Judg Ju d doo sidIng III Ia II favor of the I i III content inns IMI J II I l t I 11 I h vein n cenito of ir I u i r t i ii i i l k kI 81 n shattered tt and d i 1 II Ii sill 1 i between an wall 1 o M in I ll MH I I I 01 lilt tbt UM the U s lealH call d K l n t cm li 1 II 11 i ian an or ea a body lying wih I the t I h P I II to toI lode lod I and wa W was not i a 1 Int IT ill ami tild Id du rein that the h old I 14 11 and nd Mountain Gent am cUlm III n I l i ite i nn ni n Part of the tb width of ot this lode Ide lotI that they tt were w ol i locations and mu therefore took t the Ie lode hl on Oi It I dp dip tt outside their t vertical Th T N case waa WU then ihn i d to the supreme court of the th 10 latr on oh 01 I ft writ Whit wrt of o certiorari where It I wa Isea ar argued arUN gued gud UN and I sn submitted to 10 tile the h court ourt annul one une fear ago a That Tho court hm baa hl jut just down a opinion af at firming the ti decision of at thc circuit court coun of and anil the conten contentions contention tion lon of t tbs tl United Unit Mute tl Mining corn com company cm patty pany in ii II every ver particular The Ti case cas ca was wa cart lod through the nUrl ong ona legal 11 battle batt hy Senator nI Sutherland juth erland prland and aDd Judge W H an ac at attorneys 1 torne for the mining company while Col ol Wall WI slid and ld associated were r represented tinted ant by ly C I C 1 I ICy Ihy I Ogden Hilea HII and n Charlie Charles Clr J 1 Hueh |
