NOTES OF DECISIONS.
liThe patent of the United States is the conveyance by which the nation passes its title to portions of the public domain. The officers of the land department, in hearing testimony as to matters presented for their tion, and passing upon its competency, credibility, and weight, exercise a judicial function, and, as to these matters, their jUdgment is conclusive, when brought to notice in a collateral proceeding. It is otherwise if the action was taken in a case where the department had no jurisdiction. A want of jurisdiction may be considered by a court of law, the objection reaching beyond the action of the special tribunal, and going to the subject upon which it acted. "The words 'location' and ·mining claim' are not synonymous. A mining claim may severallocatibns, while the area that may be embraced in a' location' is limited; yet, as the interest therein is transferable, and there is no statutory prohibition, a single entry and patent may embrace any number of contiguous locations. "Labor and improvements, within the meaning of the statute, are deemed to have been had on a mining claim, whether it consists of one location or sev.eral, when the labor is performed or improvements made for its development,-that is, to facilitate the extraction of the metals'it may contain,though, in fact, such labor and improvements may be on ground which originally constituted only one of the locations, a'3 in sinking a shaft; or at a distance from the claim itself, as where the labor is performed for the turning of a stream, or the introduction of water,or where the improvement consists in the construction ,of a flume to carry off the debris or waste material. It wonld be absurd to reqUire a shaft to be sunk on each location of a consolidated claim, when orie shaft would sumce for all the locations." Allen G. Thurman, Britton &. Gray, and Walte.r H. Clark, for plaintiff in error. Markham, Patterson & Thomas, F. P. Cuppy, and T. A. Green, for defendants in error. The cases cited in the opinion were: Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 Cal. 488; Beard v. F.edery, 3 Wall. 492; Polk's Lessee v. Wendal, 9 Cranch, 87 ; ,Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380; Hoofnagle v. Anderson,,? Wheat. 212; Boardman v. Reed,6 Pet. 342; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 448; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 530; Boggs v. Mercer Mining Co. 14 Cal. 363. Infringement of Copyright. MORRELL v. 'rICE, decided in the supreme court of the United States at the October term, 1881, by Bradley, J. This was an action at law brought to recover damages for the infringement of a copyright. The declaration contained the proper averments, and the answer a general denial. On the trial, Tice, the plaintiff below, produced a copy of his almanac having on its title the reqUisite words, If Entered according to act of congress," etc., and produced the certificate of the librarian of congress certifying to the effect that he had deposited in the office of the JilJrarian of congress the title of a book, the title or description of which is in the following words, reciting the title of the book, and the right whereof he claims as proplietor in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting copyrights; and under this certificate, which was duly signed by the librarian, were written the following: "Two copies of the a1)ove publication deposited December 6, 1876," but not signed by the librarian. To the introuuction of the latter clause in evi-
dence the defendants below objected on the ground that it was no part of the certificate, which objection was overruled, and under instructions of the court verdict was rendered for the plaintiff below. Exceptions had been duly taken to the ruling of the court, and the case was brought up on writ of error to the supreme court, where it was held that "two copies of the book sought to be copyrighted is an essential condition of a proprietor's right, and such deposit must be proved in some way in an action for infringement;" and that the evidence offered and objected to was incompetent for any purpose in the case, and that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. Jurisdiction. UNITED STATES tl. McBRATNEY, a case decided in the supreme court of the United States at the October term, 1881, was taken up upon certificate of division of opinion, from the circuit court for the district of Colorado, where defendant, having been indicted and convicted of murder within the boundaries of the Ute reservation in that district, moved in arrest of judgment for want of jurisdiction, the indictment not alleging that either the accused or the deceased was an Indian; and the certificate stating that at the trial it that both were white men, it was held, (Jray, J.: The circuit court l)f the United States for the district of Colorado has no jurisdiction of an indictment against a white man for the murder of a white man within the Ute reservation in the state of Colorado. 'rhe Attorney General, for the United States. Browne & Pntnam, for defendant. The cases cited in the opinion were: U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. 567; Bates v. Chtrk, 95 U. S. 204; U. S. v. Ward, 1 Wool. 17; Case of the Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616; Case of the Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; U. S. v. Ciana, 1 McLean, 254; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509; Beatson v.Skene, 5 Hurl. &; N. 838; Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, L. R. 8 Q. B. 255.