Show THE EUREKA TOWNSHIP CASL CASE the eureka towo elte BItO CASS cage which recently occupied the attention vf of the registrar and receiver of the local land office has baa at last been decided in favor of the applicants fr for the entry of the townsite and dismisses the protest filed by M L powers et at al it was wag accidentally left out of our columns last evening but is herewith given in lull full ST on november 17 1890 hon charle foote probate judge of juab county aoun I 1 utah offered for filing in this thia office hu declaratory statement covering certain tracts of land which after excluding certain mineral claims contained acres in trust for the use and benefit of the citizens of the town of eureka I 1 this thio filing was rejected for the reason that the application did not describe the r land by legal subdivisions and for the further reason that while the tracts api plied abr were alleged to be non mineral in character certain mineral locations were excluded thus leading to the con elusion that the land is mineral and not the subject to townsite entry no ap pew peal was taken from this rejection r on january 1891 the said probate judge fudge foote filed an application to purchase the tracts first above mentioned containing 60 acres attached to this application Lp is the affidavit of judge foote fooie corroborated by dugold mcmurphy and milton E price setting forth that the application was made tor for the use and benefit of the citizens of eureka also a statement as to the number ot of inhabitants and the improvement improve men a in the town and aad further alleging that thai while certain mineral entries had bad been made of sund ground included in the townsite applina tion and mineral applications for other ground round within the townsite were pending f in n this office yet all the ground applied for by the tow nf adte it e people was essen bally non mineral and had been use tu or town site ite purposes long prior to lift mineral prior to this application there had bad been filed the corroborated affidavit of john mcchrystal alleging generally that all the lands embraced in judge footes filing were mineral going back some time we find by the records of this office an application for mad mineral patent lor for the consolidated worth north extension zulu valley and ridge claims ground within the disputed territory had bad been filed on november 25 1890 and later on pending the preliminary p proceedings the following applications were filed last chance mining claim june 12 1891 wolfe tone mining claim july home rule mining claim december 16 1891 on january 26 1891 and af enwards miscellaneous papers purporting to be protests and adverse claims were filed agail bv many of the lot owners in eureka these mineral applications these were all r rejected as such on the ground that ale alleging ng no do adverse mineral right they bould not be considered an aa adverse daims within the meaning of the mineral law prom from this action an appeal was taken as to one case which was decided by ly loleter let leter er of february 8 1891 sustaining this office on february 8 1891 this office gave notice that the proof in support of the townsite to application would be considered on june 1 1891 and also alo ordered for the fame day a hearing to determine first As to the mineral or character of the land second As to the prior occupancy and use uee as between the parties represented by the townsite application slid and those claiming under the mineral law on june 1 1891 the case was called and continued to august on the last named date the case being again called the townsite applicant judge foote presented his proof in the form of an affidavit setting forth the number of inhabitants the character odthe of the improve ments etc in this affidavit it is expressly conceded that the run ground d contained within the claim of the north extension zulu valley and ridge consolidated ana and the last chance is mineral in character charach or and is excluded from the townsite application on the same date other protests against the townsite application being filed by numerous mineral claimants a continuance was taken to september 15 1891 during that time this thin office notified the general land office of the pending ac NIL tion anat requested a stay of proceedings as to mineral entries nos noa 1621 and 1651 the question then having come u up of the jurisdiction of this office to orar order a hearing all ali proceeding Wore stayed until the receipt of the hon honorable brable commissioners letter N of september 25 1891 by this letter it was ordered that the the hearing proceed and the attention of this office was called to the decision in the woodruff townsite case letter G 11 september 12 wherein it was held that the application to enter town sites should be made by the district and not by the probate judge fudge and that the scope of the inquiry concerning the case at bar should be confined to the following points first whether the land embraced in the townsite application or any portion thereof were known to be valuable for mineral at the date of said application january and if any are thus found to be valuable clearly designate the same second whether the he lands or any portion thereof were ascertained to be kalua able for mineral subsequent to said townsite application and prior to their use and occupation for residence or business purposes and if any are so found the t ame tame should be identified and stated after due notice had been given to all parties concerning the above rulings by the department the date of hearing was again fixed for be december cember 30 1891 on that date the townsite applicants filed an amended application made by john W pis backburn lack burn idl judge ah dge of the first judicial dis riot ot of utah within which district the ground in dispute is situated attached to the amended application is an affidavit made by judge blackburn affirming and approving all that had been previously done in the mater ma ter by judge foote footland and especially excluding the north extension zulu valley and ridge bidge consolidated in the meantime other mineral c claimants having joined the prior protestants the case was proceeded with and heard on the lines laid down in the instructions of the honorable commissioner the four above noted claims known as the mcchrystal inter having been excluded from the application the attorneys representing that interest withdrew from any active participation ku in the case came the other mineral claimants md id protestants prote stanta being represented by bird fc lowe and the townsite applicants by judge J Q G sutherland and 6 0 F davis decision of the register and receiver the taking of the testimony in this case commenced on december 30 1891 and with the exception of a few short adjournments adjourn ments lasted from day to day until march during this time nearly eight hundred pages of testimony was taken and numerous exhibits offered showing how closely the ground was gone over practically the hearing was confined in scope to the two propositions laid down in the letter IN N of the honorable commissioner and during our term of office no ease case has been heard involving greater interest and none has had a more careful consideration As to the first proposition as an to whether the land embraced in the townsite or any portion ox 01 it were known to be valuable for mineral at the date of said ap application libation lioa tion january 23 1891 told we must hold that the preponderance ILI of the evidence is clearly in the negative clear inference to be drawn tro it ahe on 0 that we have been able bearing on the subject is in certainly to the effect that in an issue between a mineral and agricultural claimant the matter to be determined is whether as a present fact the ground is more valuable for mineral or townsite purposes and the measure of the cannot be determinedly determine dby the amount and value of the mineral actually produced in support of this thin proposition several decisions in like cases are quoted whatever might be the prospective value of the protesting claims in this case it is nowhere shown in the evidence that they at the time of the townsite application on hessed posses sedny any mineral value or actual producing mines the second proposition is similar to the first except that the time in which the actual discovery ot of valuable mineral may have taken place is extended to a period subsequent to the application and prior to the hearing on this proposition we must hold the same as on the first that no such showing was made und and that the almost unanimously conceded fact that no ore of any marketable mar keible value had been produced being true it must follow that the ground as a present fact so far as shown by the evidence evid guce is more valuable for agricultural than for mineral purposes and that no valuable mineral discoveries co veries were made prior to its cy for residence and business purposes our decision is that the protests offered by the mineral claimants should be dismissed and the proof offered by the townsite applicants should be accepted and ent entry allowed D HOBBS registrar HOYT SHERMAN JR JB receiver |