Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/184

This page needs to be proofread.

172 , FliPEBAIi BBPOETEB. �ZoLLABS and another v. Evans. �(Œrmît Court, B. Colorado. October,1880.) �L .MiNiKO Claim— Requisiteb oï' Title.— " On the public domain of the United States a miner may hold the place in which he may be working against ail othera having no better right. But -when he asserta title to a full claim of 1,500 feet in length, and 300 feet in width, he must prove a Iode extending throughout the claim." �2. Bame— Same.— The sinking of a shaft outside of the ground in dispute, and running drifts from thence to the ground in dispute, will not avail the plaintifE in ejectment, unless he can further show the discovery of a Iode in such shaft, and the extension of the Iode to the ground in dispute.— [Ed. �I). P. Dyer and C. L Thompson, for plaintiffs. �S. P. Rose and Wells, Smith e Maçon, îot defendant. �Hallktt, D. J. , (charging jury .) The ground in controyersy igclaimed by plaintiffs as part of the Hig^land Mary loca- tiçn, You have observed that it is but a smaïl part of that l.Qcajtion, Ijing a,\ some distance from the discovery shaft, probabjy 600 or 700 feet. tt is the land embraced within the lines of plaintiffs' and defendant's claims, or the space covered by both claims. �It is stated by counsel, and perhaps it appears in evidence, that plaintiffs have another titlô to tie same ground, based on, the Highland Chief location, but theyhave not set up that title in their pleadings, and they cannot rely on it in this action. The only right in them which can be recognized here is that which may arise from the Highland Mary location, and the investigation before you has been confined to that subject. It is not neoessary to discuss at length the validity of the Highland Mary location. It is enough to say that the plaintiffs have not shown any right or title to the promises in controversy, of date earlier than July 30, 1879; and their right at that time is to be determined upon several facts now to be stated. �In the first place, did the plaintiff corporation, the High- land Chief Consolidated Mining Company, on that day or afterwards, and before the twenty-third day of September, ����