| OCR Text |
Show wins Case of Darger vs, Le Sicur Decided for Plaintiff. Martin & Drake Live Stock Co. Get S52QO Damages Against Beck et al. J. C. Nielsen Recovers 417 Head of Sheep and $37 Damages. MONDAY. Court resumed session ;t 10 o'clock. Parley Draper and Harrison N. Fugate were examined and empaneled as petit jurors The case of Darger et al vs. St. V. Le Sieur was resumed. M.JM. Kellogg appeared for plaintiff and Elmer B. Joues for defendant. This is a case in which Mr. Darger the plaintiff claims that he and- others located six claims of ("ozokerite" or mineral wax, in Tie Fork, of Spanish Fork canyon', about five miles from the line of theR. G. W. Ry.; that said claims took up a space of 1800 feet x 3000 feet and they were located and the boundary boun-dary lines made distinct and according to the Mining Laws of the United States, in 1SSS. That St. Y. Le Sieur, the defendant, located on the same place in 1890 without .regard to plaintiffs plain-tiffs notices or the work that had been done by plaintiff. The jury was empaneled em-paneled and the respective counsel made their opening statements. The first witness was Jesse Lewis, who testified tes-tified to the location of the claims. The claims were located on mineral land which he thought was valuable, or he wouldn't have located them. The six claims were located in a parallelogram par-allelogram of 1800x3000 feet, and monuments of rock placed at the discovery dis-covery point, after which the claims were staked off. Witness further described de-scribed the situation of the discovery monument on the vein, with reference to the end lines and amount of work done by the company, of which he is superintendent, during 1SSS and 1S90 on each of the different claims. The notices of location he recognized to be in his writing, copies of which had been filed by Stubbs in the office of the County Recorder of Utah county. The original notices of location were fcere offered in evidence by plaintiff's counsel and objection raised thereto by defendant, the basis of which objection ob-jection was that the notices were indefinite in-definite and ambiguous and that the United States statute required the boundaries to be distinctly marked so that they could be located readily with reference to some natural object or permanent monument; there were Tie canyon north, south, east and west, and, therefore, the locations of these claims as described in these notices were indefinite and not within the statute. The notice of recorded location loca-tion must be such that an officer with a writ or any other person in search of the property might readily find it by the description therein. Opposing counsel had a different conception of ihe law, .and illustrated his position Dy showing how on the deserts of Arizona Ari-zona v. hen a prospector made a discovery dis-covery of mineral it would be impossible impos-sible for him to give other notice than by erecting his discovery monument and placing thereon his notice of location. lo-cation. The CoimI overruled the defendant's de-fendant's objecti "i and the notices of location were pl;' e ! in the evidence. Peter Stubbs, om- of the "grub stak-ers," stak-ers," testified to forwarding supplies to the men at work on the claims. At the afternoon session St. Y. Le Sieur testified io having prospected around and having located the ground he claimed; lh;ve were some holes-very holes-very small one-. -and that probably tOOk tWO d.'lVs" '.V rU Tip Inr-.-itoil Miwl recorded them, and by permission of the Court Hi.- Caw !y Recorder's book was allowed to he introduced, the original ori-ginal notice nrf i . ;;,g on hand. After arguTi-esit tS:e case was submitted sub-mitted to the ji.rv. The case of M i t : ii Drake Livestock Co. vs. Beck ivm ii w;is called, and a jury impaneled. George Sutherland appeared for i::;:itiff and A. G. Sutherland and X. A.Wilson for defendants. de-fendants. This a case in which plaintitf clainis-i ; ! damages for the breach of coin ne alleged as follows: Plaintiff sold a Mai 'ion to defendants jforSGoOin A.: .l: l.-iJo, to be paid as follows: &5.:ii hi cash at delivery of animal, and t-ne ),. y horse, value S12-5, I and one span of mares, valued at $175, mares to ha !-. delivered in December De-cember la;;-.. iLc mares were not delivered, and ..YIYi.dants claim that the stallion .sold 1 them was not a full blooded Perri . ioi. ;:s represented by the plaintiff. The jury in ;he Darger v.. St. V. Le Sieur case returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In the ca-o of Steele vs. Boley, decided de-cided by tie Territorial Supreme Court, un order was made filing the remittitur. re-mittitur. Court adjiitii-uc-d until 9:30 a. m., Tuesday morning. TUESDAY. T,!ecase ,,f Haiti n D,ake Live Stock Co. vs. Beck and Booth was resumed. re-sumed. His honor instructed the juror to return u n.-,V,., .r n.vui t nu icimii a M-nnei oi sl'oo for plaintiff. plain-tiff. Mammoth Mmmr Company vs. Pat Condon et al.; an order was niade continuing con-tinuing the eas. for the term. Hyrum V. .-,:.. vs. .1. Wl Stewart; action ior dan a. s for false imprisonment; imprison-ment; attachment iued for Martin ilonda. j The case of .1. ( Neilpon vs. W. W. 1 randon et al was !;,.-, called and a I jury empaiN-h',1 Mdherland and! tfeid appeared fo, the plaintiff, and I jxeyand W: n -.. n for defendant. ' l! is is a ease 'i- '.ght to recover J sheep from defendant. Witnesses were examined by both sides and the ca.se was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict, that plaintiff r--covei 417 head of sheep and receivt-Soo receivt-Soo damages. Court adjourned until Wednesday morning. |
