Casper Daily Tribune Newspaper, October 4, 1918, Page 4

FRIDAY, OCT. 4, 1918 ik. Bay LIBERTY Bonds to Feed Fi SS gress (now Sec. 2332 R. S.) as # part were cited with approval. In this case | erly, in ‘ : : : the ‘Phill on ante ined Aorta solve, save the rights of a mine owner |of the laws by which a right to a pat- from ee up title to gold mine| as against one who after many years! ...+ jc to be determined.” based on the Phillipino’s possessory|have gone by, seeks to maintain an- Récapitulstion title and’ he was sustaived. other location, contending that there taimunt"b? & WiWerel ciatm: un California ‘Agrees with the Secretary | never was a discovery by the orig-| A claiman 2 iq es of Interior inal locator. ‘Common experience der Section 2332 U. 8. R. S. is en- The Supreme Couft of California,| tells us that death or inability to|titied to patent to that claim, without in Altoona Quicksilver -Mining Co. Gone meen oor neE as 1 ea affirmatively. proving (1) record. ti- vegral i ically impossi 3 % a a Rath Stow, abaartetinies espri so firmative physical fact an original dis-| tle; (2) a discovery;; (3) posting a : oa: & shee Aly. 3 { mineral at the time ‘of lo-| notice of claim upon the land and (4) ° uf ——o/ Secretary Hitchcock held: of possession for the statutory period|¢Covery of min tion! F should! é; icing borne doehth eM be rinrk iy ’ ine “AN that is required, in ‘such a case |i8, under Sec. 2882, the equivalent of|cation. The “prestm| riots oe eae ee r-posting: . - \| Today $ Quotations ire Bek thes essory’ title, in|!cation. The court says: : serve ‘as evidence in fa’ mt has pro.|in& the limits of his claim. ; : the ; 5 =A Burnished b: rf to estal t ane claint, is} ““The court instructed the jury to claimant until gerd ec pra the| Under Section 2332 U. 8. R. S., if | OTIS & ‘COMPANY. | pape a showing that [the effect that one who has niet lo- or sl eee He ae ee rows ttt litte’ athiat ahGws thal He te7a citi RIVA E L paces eed Sores Ee Eo | the claim was sovheld ‘and ‘Worked so rouernlb ne ae pape in Sistoe of any other rule would imperil the | zen of the United States; that he has tyre fie ; | | the time prescribed; and it van make |i may yet acquire a right there-| value of unpatented mines located 4) o,enly and notoriously held and TaP EPS Ta Stock Bid “Ss no difference whether ace evi-lt5 by holding and working the same|long time’ ago Sod eonvere bt a worked the pias ony pene % 4 Allen Gil. 2) dence of the location is in existence Yaa: i ’ a, locators to bona fide purchasers it as his own, to the excltision of al! , Frank G. Curtis Prepares Important Leg: oad Pers 002 ‘01 | and might be furnished or not.” An peered Gain mnUterabnteedmndel| may haxe expended large sums in de-|vthere, for the statutory possessory : lp ) i n act v2 | peri ’ State or Territory in r, , 04 .06 | applicant for patent who has “made that section’ 2332—the’ sec-| velopment.” - period of ‘the State ory Brief Setting Forth Status of Hold- _ Bessemer -- Hr “Ty | SheH eaUertag. is wot renuired-to-pwe-|coutnnd that soctlen!) DSR chk! bic. | velopenete ct dissents, bolalig the [Which the claim is situate, and show. Fe ‘ ! thes _ 9 | duce récord evidence df ‘his location, | patent shall issue in such case when| state statute of Nevada get bet? ing that Five Hundred © Dollars utgs un the Salt Creek Area |Black Bear... 08 Yo | or to give any reason for not pro-/there is no adverse claim, but, where| more than annual assessthent work to! worth. of permanent improvement a2 |Big Indian - -20 -25 | ducing such evidence. On this ques- any one"has'‘located the same land |make possesdory'title. ' i: work’ has’ been dohe upon it, he is 5 : 2 . : K Big Five - 013 -02 | tion the decision of your office can-|acgording to law and the custom of| ©" Nature of Right Saapenre agp entitled to a'patent’on it. Mr. Curtis, who is executive chairman of the Wyoming brane Columbine - 08 -I1 | not be sustained. (Little Emily’ Mi iners, then mere possession’ gives no| Judge Sawyer, ose Sadscisuce Under the latter feito ae of the American Mining congress, says there is not a mineral claim in Gente 004 .01 | ing and Milling Company, 34 L!*D. fy ght whatever. “Whe Act of ee re. Bevin Maine te AS tes | a eT. and every oO for- 1 si ith- | poem ‘ i] 182.)” has been otherwise construed in va-|D- > x“ ‘esumi - the Salt Creek oil field that should fail to be patented, based upon eith Cops. Royal, ce ol adel. sages cece ag rious eases. "420 Min, Co. va, Bullion| Fight conterred by Section 2332, says fy and lewally done nd performed, a er ong of two methods of patenting. Certainly there are many wit- Se iia: onS 2.60 | with Secretary of ‘the Isterior= Min: ©o., 9 Nov. 240; Td, 3 Sawy.| “If I am right A ius far then it wat|q result of the poeedaion WH vee ing nesses who could establish the private rights to the oil lands of Salt) Gienrock Oil 3.25 3.874| In Belk v. Meagher, 104 U! S. 279, |684, Fed. Cas. No. 4,989. Judge! finally an: ee i ned/of the claim’ for the statutory pos- Creek, ding to Mr. Curtis’ brief, which is published in full below. |Helca-Wyo. - 008 00H | the Supreme court of the United|Sawyer says: that the laws of, the/in the former netion | somal 10 | Sessory age ee Se Pee cas rad me ‘ * he oil lands in|Jupiter --- 02 -03 | States said of Section 2332: state constitute a part of the laws by|same parties thai piathant; for’ the ee at foes . He says “‘the United States has no more right to the oil lands in (Sees a7 ‘20 | “Gnde# the provision of the Revised |which & mining right-is determined,|as against complainants time pro. |Dated September 30, ' the Salt Creek field than it has to Boston Common, Old Trinity Church! xinney = 57 -@0 Statutes’ relied ‘upon; Belk'toald not | It must therefore follow that where adverse posse Sot a ae ae ee Stat eee alas a i) i 20.50 21. t tent for the claim he at-|/such possession has continued for c , ‘ Pad BSP 7 8 pe ta ee ag al % 1 Midwest Com. : -98 | tempted, to locate, uiiless'hé secured | years before the adverse right exists, tion “'to recover a cur rnpattiye| Chinese woman doctor, has’ been dp- a pee Li | H 114.00 | what is here made the equivalent of |lit is equiyalent to a location under/ibue’ vested ‘the fe gaesesas yor | pointed house pene et the boys For centutles it has "been the pol-| Sale. - fotat their’ ‘ 024) a valid location, ‘by actually working /the laws of congress: See, also, Har- Tabet aratacsen darts. *Séé Arvin: (2 eeeuieal re o sags Loe po oe otk tale amon aw ana ails, Suc DoSeeanory, es oca’ ae ne = : 50" and holding for the requisite length | ris. vs: Mining Co., 8 Fed. 863; Dak tan ei Thscom, 84°'Culif. 380-4,’ and ton, aoe and. magna 7b salad civil law to provide statutes of spe- sat ne vaNthes ae te f ald be F na] Of titre Rp De sttuaty Bele woneee: pre eee de oh oy 19. thé numerous cases cited there; Can-| pen ae oh i lomas' two years Br Mette tinn cree vclatae ee differ. | Can. Prove ese points, should be! pantginder 07 -08 | sion and worked the claim long }¥8- Jillson, 83 Cal. 302, 23 ‘ac. 419, sm Stockmen, 86 Calif, 540; ahd| 7°27, D0) er dip! Re Eat fe fanelediiec the time when | ule, te seve blish thetr. tiple “againtt | premier: = 02 a enough, and kept'all others out, his} Two Modes oe Feiting Mining Leffiigwell vs. Warren, 2-Black (67| 98° and has waht rao i ; e a aes bad F aalnitai ste ol er J . |Republie Pet. -02 5 ight to a patent would be completa.” ae jaims ee 4 “2 agai the, tinctions open to the medical profes. ices ce jan as Sf Oe oe pepe Many claims fully established in gpijoh ___ 01 013 Secretary ini Company vs. Integral Quick: ee eee shets ena pear elr fi ighting with the British forces in “Clusively ‘under a claim of owner- ited sap tent He net conaticate ese eae coe oot bye sett nh A arenes joe hartcust spenta'eh such statutes:not ‘only bars the rem-| France. ship and it is to be expected that the| Cwnership of a claim, It ie w mere | Woe e efoot ra “60 '|_. ‘Where’ the validity of a location | 1%" 1 /°'" Ties provided by Congress, edy, but extinguishes the right and| r aes United States of America, in admin- evid en er a oabin It is simply wen ama 28 :g5 |Temains unchallenged) for five “years, for acquiring title to mineral lands.| vests d perfect title in he adverse) : istering its public lands, should pro-| S’neans of ovidencine title ted Sante peas TE -p | the period of the stutute of limita- nose: two: methods are referred tojholder? A’ title so acquired will be) ALY vide that the possessor a mining Sea R 1 € ees 3 nS tatne cOUne: a a4 “ tions, the presumption arises of the througthout this brief, one being to|auieted in’ the adverse holder on a/ vut ' oe claim should have a definite statute |” lend wie eee Wind: River Ra discovery of mineral and a valid lo-/ oo oiy under the regular statutory /bill inequity, even’ ayainst Hig Be : = 7, to enable such possessor to secure 4) The administtation’ of the mining | having jurisdiction of “mining ‘cases cation. ‘ s : provision of the placer mining law/er of a paper title barred. ay 8), Be Better Looking— ‘ake title to a claim thru possession. | law disclosed: that trinny-loeators and | within the judicial district embracing Bp AB A ee heat wand the other being under possessory| porbeaa sorvtin Sa ae pier Olive Tablets An Axiom’ of Equity ‘grantors of mining claims could not the claim, that no suit or action of ie Bev: reuit Court of | ichts for the period provided in Séc. | 462. e latter © a —_—" When‘ the tommon law of England © ASblisiiroct iG tHele’ clade eerie the clah oe, 333 tecer involving the | 4PPeals; avhere ‘the court said: 2382, U.S. RS. utes under which it -arose were fully wt is pallid proved to be inadequate, in many | to Dindeeanacade apirecording otiites prt se fan any portion 6 “The need ial td Pits New Mexico Agrees With examined in SET Eto vs. Liscom, a Jue costed-appettopont—you eibe cases, a ‘court of equity was estab- and the loss or destruction of public the ‘elaim. applied for is:pending, and remained unchallenged for more than the Secretary + ‘ supra. | d ahawest abad taste in your mouth—a ee lished and ‘one of the leading axioms K 5 a ‘ Seti be five years and up to the time of the| The Supreme Court’ of New Mexico! It is further argued on the p: feeling—you should take Olive that has ‘always governed all equity | Hocords snd ey) ~ oS rma that there ‘hks Lie an eer ey Le commencement of this action. It has|in Upton Mya Santa Rita Mining Co.,/0f the complainant, that the statute “pr Eawards' Olive Tablets—a substitute rt ets sentiektis 3 rigil- | CeParture of witnesses. is the his-) fore said court affecting the title to i on r i imitati does npt apply, beeause | gorca: [were prep: ‘Dr. tactice’is: ‘Equity is for the vigil-| i lores : > been held that under such circum-|14 N. Mex. 96, 89 Pacific 275, says| Of limitations p > a ‘calomel: f d by Edwards ae dha inet fortnim who'sleeps upon | YoY oh eae mea ee | said claim’ 6r ‘any part thereof on stances the certificate of location|of the claimant holding under Sec. the title is (was) in” the United | after 47 years of study with-his patients. his rights.” | Sexy, people. ese points had to be) period equal to the time fixed ‘by the creates a presumption of discovery (2332: | States, and such statutes do not'ran Dr. Edwards'Olive Tablets are a purely 4 The American colonies and Ameri-| etaruye! Ue dentrencos for mining ce mineral and of a valid location;”| “We believe that the true rule on against the government. Gibson vs: vegetable compound mixed can states, as ‘a rule, have followed | the equity practice of England, and) it’ has largely permeated’ our “whole systems of government. ‘ Possessory Title Practical The ‘whole’ human organization calls for a’statute of posséssion. Consider an‘ example ‘under’ the Placer ‘Mining’ law! Today eight citizens may ‘associate thertiselves !tv- gether, and’ corner-post ‘or*mark the limits of a claim, post their rotite of location upon: the’ claim, make their discovery of mineral 6n it and record the! notice of location of it'in the proper recorder’s office, thus ¢re- ating an absolutely valid atid! com-) plete title ‘to ‘that Placer’'Mining | Claim. That*is then their propert: It is then their complete ‘veste right. i ‘now, supposing tomorrow ‘all the diving witnesses to doing and per- forming thosé¢ things, either die or depart to poitits unknown. Does any- one suppose that, claim thefeby be- comes invalid? Of course, it does} |to have equitable relief thru statu-| « So, like the common law of Eng-|¢laims in the! state or territory as, land had to have its réform thYw’ geoyésaid’ other thin that’ which has equity practice, ‘the mining! liw had! heen finally decided in favor of the TITLE BY POSSESSION 2.’ —-_| aaimant, : “7%. The claimant should support tory provisions'and the congress ‘Of! pis ‘narrative of ‘facts relative to his the United States passed’! law to possession, ‘octupancy, and improve- provide for the! Ideators*6r their heirs| petits: by corrobotative testimony of or assigns or podsessory claimants 0 any’ ‘@isinteréatéd "person or pérsons excuse-themt from having to try tO! oF eradibility who tiay be cognizant do thé impossible, that is, to present| of the facts in‘the case and are cap- citing Harris v. Equator M. & S. Co., 40 Fed. 971 and Cheeseman vs. Hart (C. C.) 42 Fed 98. Cheeseman vs. Hart on Possession (42 Fed. 98) The Court says: “The evidence on both sides tend- ed to show the long-tanding: indica- tions of a staked claim, and-of shafts sunk or holes dug. The witnesses’ dif- lost or destroyed record titlés or] unayailable*Witnesse’ of minéral dis- coveries;’ etc’, arid‘ *hérefdre; made the possession and working’ of a min- ing claim for the statutory posses- sory period for the state or territory in which it is*situated)'the only re- quirements to entitle them to patent, by aldo’ showing,’ of coursé, that they ‘| were citizens of ‘the United ‘States and“ had! performed‘ $500' worth of permanent improvement work tipon their claim. 2 United States Statute Re. Possessory | Title” The possessory statute passed by abje! of testifying! understwndingly in thé ‘ premises.” Main Feature of Section 2332 The! land offiée, in’ construing Sec- tion 2832, US) R. S.; Bays: “It is believed that the main pur- pose ‘of Section 2332 wa to declare, that @vidence” the holding and workifg of a mining claim,’ when equal to the time prescribed by the lo- cal statute oflimitations for mining claims, shall ‘be'.cbnsidered as ‘suffi- ciently establishing the location of the claim andthe applicant’s rights | thereunder. The séction was enacted fered only as to the precise point of such workings. The claims had stood unchallenged’ for years, and work of | more or less importance had been prosecuted at various points on these claims yea before this controversy. If, after all this, the court should not. tell the jury that. every -reasonable presumption should be indulged in favor of the discovery of a-lode by the miner, it is difficult to conceive of a state of facts where such in- tendment should arise. Any other j rule, it seems to me, would render | such claims practically unmarketable, t. | congress is found in Section 2 of ach |the Revised Statutes and reads as Entitled to Patent “+ follows: The set of facts just given rais jae nee aN : Ct the question, when can the ow 5 Where such person or association, @clai as eaniteto it? | they and their grantors, have held of eal qui, necure ye different| and worked their claims for a pe- ti start jriod equal to the time prescribed by ‘aie one way, the land was patent-| the statute of Limitations, for mining able as soon as the limis of the claim] Claims, of the state or territory were marked or staked;. the notice | Where the same may be situated, evi- of location posted upon the claim dence of such possession and work- a discovery of mineral was made’up-| ing of the claims, for uch period, on the claim: the notice of location | Shall be sufficient to establish a right was properly recorded and $500) to a patent-thereto, under this chap- worth of permanent improvement) ter, oad the absence of any adverse work was completed on the claim,| ¢laim. ‘ providing the claimants were citi-| _ There doesn’t seem to be any ques- zens of the United States. tion or equivocation about that la z is thi in a very | $uage of congress. ‘All of this might be done in a very | Suage of - short time. It might be possible to; Land Office Regulations Under Pos- perfect a claim of this kind in one} _ sessory Right 3 day or even in less than a day and|_ In administering the law provided there would be no legal occasion for in section 2332 of the U. S. Revised waiting any longer to apply for a| Statutes, the Department of the In- patent and to be granted a patent) terior, thru the Land Office,* has in 60-days, after making the appli-| adopted the following regulations: cation. “The 60 days allows for the “74. The Provisions of Section publication period and refers to a 2382, Revised Statutes, will greatly claim without adverse claimants. lessen the burden of proof, more es- A second manner of patenting this pecially in the case of old claims claim would be for the locators of) located many years since, the records it or their heirs or assigns, or the! of which, in many cases, have been mants thereof, as the ca may destroyed by fire, or lost in other be, to hold and work it openly, no | Ways during the lapse of time, but toriously and exelusively under a concerning the possessory right to claim of ownership, for and daring which all controversy or litigation the statutory period of the state or| has long been settled. territory in which it is situate, with- “75. When an applicant desires to in which time it is provided that one| make his proof of possessory right in may gain title to real estate by pos-| accordance with this provision of law, session. . he will not be required to’ produce Then, in order to patent the claim, evidence of location, copies of con- nothing needs to be shown beyond yeyances, or abstracts of title, as in the fa that the claimants are qual-| other cases, but will he required to ified citizens of the United States: furnish a duly certified copy of the that they have exclusively neld nd _| statute of limitation of mining claims worked the land under the claim of! for the state or territory, together ownership, for the statutory posses-| with his sworn statement giving a sory period of the state or territory |clear and succinct narration of the to prevent an applicant from failing) or valueless in the hands’ of an as- to obtain his patent simply for de-| signee. The miner goes, digs, and fects in his claim when he had held! delves, and is so ‘safisfied’ that he a long undisputed Possession and no| makes the survey, stakes off his one had opposed him.” . | claim, and then makes ‘his location Wyoming's Possessory Period Bi which fs eritered of “rec: Section 3480, Compiled Laws of| ord. After this he sells to an honest Wyoming, provides that placer ¢tlaim-| man, and passes out of view or dies. ants who have held and women their) All subsequent workings go to show claims for five years “shall be em| the existence of a lode or vein’ on titled to proceed to patent,” without) the claim of more or less importance. further work. When this section of! Gan it be that after the lapse of the Wyoming statutes is read with|many years the assignee must Section 2332 of the U. S. R. S. it is) lose his claim because of his inability evident that the possessory period for/ to produce the lost or the dead, and obtaining mineral lands in the state) prove affirmatively an ‘actual visible of WypEioe is ae yearn in Ory by me Tl eg easee of absence of an adverse claim” ar ore in place where he dug? ‘ossibly Section 2332 does not contemplate the charge in ‘this particular ‘would any other claim than one which has have been more theoretically correct no adverse claimant. |had the court ‘told the jury that ‘it Claimants of mineral ‘lands in the) was not necessary that defendants state of Wyoming, however, have) should’ establish’ 'such" discovery By further statute to consider in conneéc-| witnesses’ to thé physical fact at the tion with the possessory period and| time. ‘But the'same might be in-fer- that is Section 4296 of the Compiled red fromi the certificate of location, Laws of Wyoming, which provides! the manifestation’ of Workings done, that actions to recover title’ or pos-| the long tenure of the claim, the de- sessiom of real property must be brot) velopment’ of avein on the claim By within ao aes from .the Fiche eee working, and from all the cause of action accrues, m surrounding circumstances.’ claim is real property, therefore, it|Montana Agreés with the Secretary appears that if a claimant of a min-| * of. ‘the Interior ing claim is seeking to establish a} In McCowan ys. McLay, 16 Mont. te eet fet a s it rere ade ty 2, 40 pas 602 (cited in Reavis v. Inite: es and an adverse claim- Fiynza) the court says ant, to as to eliminate the adverse “We are of the opinion that this claimant, he must not only possess’ section was enacted: to meet cases himself of the claim for the five year| where applicants’ for patent have in which it is situate, and have per formed $500 worth of permanent im- provement work upon that claim. They. should then be granted patent, 60 days after applying for it, that is after the publication period. “No public records at all need be shown under the latter circumstances. (There are certain forms to be fol lowed under department rules, hete- after quoted.) Equitable and Legal Titles Before securing patent and after fully performing the requirements above stated the informal title or facts as to the origin of his title and likewise as to the continuation of his possession of the mining ground cov- ered by his application the area | thereof; the nature and extent of the Pp mining that has been done thereon; ' whether there has ‘been any opposi- tion to his possession, or litigation with regard to his claim, and if so, when the same ceased; whether such cessation was caused by compromise or by judicial decree, and any addi- ; tional facts within the claimant’s knowledge having a direct bearing upon his possession and bonk fides equitable title to a claim rests in the; which he may desire to submit in locators, their heirs or assigns or the support of ‘his claim, possessory claimants and the formal “76, There should likewise be filed title or legal title rests in the United |a certificate under seal' of the court period required, in connection with Section 2332 of the Revised Statutes, but he must add five years to that 'to overcome the title of the former claimant, In other words, if a claim- ant has taken possession of the ground against a former claimant, he must hold it openly, notoriously, claiming it, excluding the other claimant for a period of 10 years in the state of Wyoming before he can safely apply for patent under the provision of Section 2832 of the U.S. R. S. and Sections 3480 and 4296 of the compiled laws of Wyoming. sion and Work Equal to a Valid Location In Capital No, 5, Placér Claim, 34 L. D. 462, the claimant presented proof of three years’ work and pdés- sion in lieu of proof of a location. he land office rejected the appliéa- tion, holding that “said section ap- plies only where the record of the mining location is imperfect, where, for some other reason, pos- sessory title cannot be shown by réc- ord evidence, none of which condi-! tions is made to appear in the casé,’’| |In. reversing the Land Department ‘or! been in possession of their claims for. the period of the statute of limita- jtions, but were unable to make full proof of their rights to a patent as |¥equired by the previous provisions |of the law, and to excuse their de: |fects in title.’ Congress determined | that the land office should pass over such defects and give them. their pat- ents, provided no one “appeared to contest their applications.” | Reavis vs. Fianza on Possession—215 U.S. 16 (1909): The United States Supreme Court | observed that Section 45, of the Phil- ippine Act was exactly the same -as |Section 2332 of the U. S. Revised |Statutes and held: Where a native |Phillipino held a gold'mine that his father held before him and_ his (grandfather held before that;'all for | fifty years or more; \where they had worked the ’mihes'and an American |came in’’and locatéd the mine and |took possession of it, the American could not validly hold it. This suit arose on the possessory title of Fian- za, the Phillipino: > j ii ii in Al-| Chateau, 13 Wall. (80 U. S.) 92, is, belay clap esas Lr Cal. cited to sustain this position. But 100, 45 Pac. 1047, where it is said this case can have no application, for, \that ‘working for the statutory period 5 we have seen, the party who is the} before the adverse right’ exists is|owner of the mining claim as against | equivalent to a location under the Act | everybody except the United States, yof Congress,’ and in Belk vs. Meager, | under the laws of the State or Terri- 104 U.S. 279)! 287, 27 L. Ed. 736, | tory, and the rules and regulations of where it it declared to“be the ‘equiva-| ae ofa valid‘ location.’ In a ches [rekpective of the Act of Congress, words, a party who has done such|is the party entitled to a patent; and) ‘work occupies the status and posses- the statutes of limitations of the) ses the rights°of a locator, no more! state or territory applicable to he and no less. As in the case of a hold-| subject themselves constitute a part er of a valid location he has good title of thé laws by which the right to | as against all but the. government, so| mining claim is to be determined, for Jong as he does the annual labor. As the purpose of ‘ascertaining who is ‘Equator Company: (GC. C.)-8 Fed. 863, purchase is conferred. Such statutes ; “A presumption is indulged that the|as we have seen are expressly recog-| location was regularly made in the )nized in Section 13 of the Act; of Con-| is said by Judge Hallett, in Harris vs.|the party upon whom the right to|]- pO. Box 325 You willknow them by their olive‘ color. ‘To have aclear, fee salina druggists. Take one or two note the pleasing results, GEQL WORK Maps and Blue Prints, Surveying Wyoming Map and Blue Print Co., - Phone 849 111 North Wolcott Street Casper, Wyo. first place, and the party is allowed to| ~ remain so long as he shall comply with the conditions on which hé holds the estate.’ When such party comes to apply for patent, his occupancy must be proven under certain regula- tions of the Department (2 Lindley, 1714) and, when so proved, if there be no adverse claimant, they are suf- ficient, as the statute ‘says; ‘to 'estab- lish a-right to a patent.’ But in this gains in used Buicks, Elears, DON’t FORGET TO BUY Tf You Want a Car, See Us We still have a few new cars in stock, also some excellent bar- , Chandlers, Overlands, ete. YOUR LIBERTY BOND _’ ‘Third and Pine streets ecorsaseerecheoscesecs she stands on the same basis as the holder of a loé¢ation whose applica- tion is uncontested. The holder of a location; must possess the necessary qualifications as to citizenship. Ath- thony’vs. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, 23 Pac. 419. He must prove, as well as the} locator, the possession and $500 t worth of labor or improvements be- fore he can secure patent. ‘Gapital No. 5 Placer Min. Claim, 34 Land Dec. Dept. Int. 462, supra.” ‘Posséssory Claimant Paramount In'the recent case of Ralph vs. Cole 249 Fed. 81, (9th Circuit Court Ap- peals) defendant in an adverse suit had offered evidence and asked in- structions in support of! his claim of titlé under See. 2332. “As the matter arose the question of a discovery was also involved. In reversing the Dis-| trict Court the Circuit Court of Ap- peals’ decision says the evidence showed possession for the statutory period and “evidence was given of the perform- ance of the required annual agsess- ment work on each of the lode claims ‘in dispute by the locazors thereof and their successors in interest, and tend- ing to show their continued adverse occupancy by the successors in inter- est of the original locators and the doing from time to time of a large amount of work themeon,” etc., and held the’excludéd defense good. Circuit Judge Hunt, coneurring,’ says: j “Open and exclusive possesion had ; been in defendant or his predecessors for years. It was accepted that lo- cation notices in compliance with law had been posted and filed, that the annual assessment work had“ been done, and that much additional. ex- penditure was made upon the claims before the placer locations were filed Witnesses also testified to facts tend- ing to show the existence of veins and lodes at the time of original lo- cation; and the general mineral char- acter of the country was not disputed, This evidence made a strong prima facie conclusion as against the placer claimants in favor of discovery by de- fendant:. It-established a presump- tien whereby the truth of a discovery was to be assumed, and the legal con- sequences attaching’ to it, and the “BARNETT’S and wonderful smooth, even OF traditional quality has aay 121 East LIBERTY FIFTEEN DOLLARS KNOX FELT HATS, SIX TO SEVEN-FIFTY M. D. Barnett Outfitting Company burden thrown upon the plaintiff by BONOS TODAY’ reason of the presumption,- should have been explained to the jury. As a general rule the benfit of sucha Cases “upholding possessory. titles under Section 2332 of U. S, R: S. spite [2 mining case, for it might very prop- | raithg. wats presumption is specially important in OF COURSE” The KNOX Clear Beaver QUALITY all the way through. Nothing but the finest Beay- ~ er Fur goes into this hat. Even the man who does not know hats technically is Botnd to notice ice the beautiful silken finish texture. . never been more wonderfully Second St,