Volume 4 — Alaska Reports

Application to make permanent restraining order enjoining the defendants from causing to be issued or levied an execution against Smith, judgment debtor, and Havery, Anderson, and Capewell, sureties, in that certain action in this court numbered 594, and entitled Annie C. Lorentzen, Plaintiff, v. Julia Werner and W. G. Mogeau, Defendants. Restraining order continued in force until further order of court.

Plaintiff and defendant, from the year 1898 up till 1905, were closely associated as friends and business associates. The plaintiff, being an older and less vigorous man than the defendant, was in his and their business matters accustomed to rely much on the judgment and advice of Whistler, the defendant. The defendant, during part o-f this period, kept the plaintiff’s books of account.

This is an action on a promissory note. The plaintiff alleges that on or about the 27th day of May, 1902, in the town of Dawson, in the Yukon territory, the defendants and each of them executed and delivered to the plaintiff their and each of their promissory note as follows: “$1,440.61.

Petition for citizenship under declaration made prior to Act June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 528). Morgan Francis Kennedy, the petitioner, was born in Ireland on the 14th day of May, 1878. He arrived in the United States in June, 1898, and in April, 1899, declared his intention to become a citizen at Sacramento, Cal.; that being a little less than one month before his twenty-first birthday.

On petition of the defendants in cause of United States v. Bozaravitch et al., held to answer before the grand jury at this term for a violation of section 49- of the codified laws of the United States by the United States commissioner and ex officio justice of the peace in and for Fairbanks precinct, for writ of habeas corpus. Petition denied.

<p>Criminal Daw (§ 1077*)' — Appeal and Error — In Fop.ha Pauperis.</p> <p>Where the defendant was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree, found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life, the jury qualifying their verdict by adding “without capital punishment,” the prisoner is entitled to a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States in forma pauperis, under section 6 of Act Cong. Feb. 6, 1889, c. 113, 25 Stat. 656 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 569), citing United States v. Fitzpatrick, 178 U. S. 304, 20 Sup. Ct. 944, 44 D. Ed. 1078.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2718, 2719; Dee. Dig. § 1077.*]</p>

On motion of the plaintiff, McNamee, for summary judgment against the defendants Bernard, Beckford, and Palmer, as sureties on supersedeas bond executed by the other defendants as principals and the last-named defendants as sureties on appeal from judgment of said court against the original defendants, which said judgment was thereafter affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the objection of said sureties to the authority and jurisdiction of…

This is á suit involving the rights of the parties in certain tide or shore land within the corporate limits of the town of Juneau but abutting upon uplands lying without and beyond the patented townsite of Juneau.

This matter has been submitted to the court by both sides upon plaintiff's motion for judgment upon the pleadings.

The defendant R. F. Laffoon has demurred to the complaint herein on a number of grounds, but the only ones contended for in the argument which was made by him were the fourth and fifth grounds therein stated; that is, that there was a defect of parties plaintiff and defendant, and that several causes of action had been improperly united.

This is an action brought by the receiver of two insolvent corporations, doing business within the territory of Alaska, to recover from a former treasurer of one of the said corporations the sum of $22,796.59, alleged to have been received by the defendant as such officer of the Tanana Railway Construction Company; and that such sum was in fact the asset of the Alaska Central Railway Company, and had not been accounted for or paid by the said defendant.

On exceptions to answer of First National Bank, garnishee. On the 24th day of July, 1909, the plaintiff herein instituted an action against the defendants to recover the sum of $7,-745.77. The defendant appeared in said action and confessed judgment, and on the said 24th day of July, 1909, the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants for said sum in said action.

These suits are brought by the United States to recover duties on account of undervaluation of importations of coke by the defendants.

This is a suit for the possession of unpatented real property.

This is a suit by the plaintiffs against the defendants to have restitution of lot 8, block 24, town of Skagway, with damages for its detention.

This is a suit by plaintiff against the defendant J. J. Mc-Grath and his tenant, for the recovery of the possession of real property and damages for its detention.

This is a suit in equity to establish title to 1,000 miner’s inches of the water of Lurvey creek in the above-entitled plaintiffs as against the defendant corporation. The complaint was filed December 28, 1908, alleging title to the “B. C. Fractional” placer claim through conveyance from one V. McFarland, dated June 19, 1905, on which placer ground it was the intention of the locators of the above-alleged water to use the same.

For the purpose of the decision in this case it is necessary-only to state: That this is an action for accounting brought by the plaintiff, Pearce, against the defendants Sutherland and the Alaska Perseverance Mining Company, a corporation, upon the theory that the defendant corporation is a holding company for the defendant Sutherland.

This is a libel against the Japanese schooner the Tenyu Maru, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, charging the vessel, her captain, officers, and crew with illegal sealing within the three-mile limit of the shores of the Pribilof Islands, in the waters adjacent thereto, in the Third judicial division of the territory of Alaska.

<p>On application of plaintiff for restraining order pendente lite.</p>

This is an action submitted to the court for its decision under the provisions of part 4, c. 28, of the Code of Alaska, on an agreed statement of facts. The statement of facts was subscribed and sworn to by A. J. Nordale, mayor of the town of Fairbanks, and H. E. Gardner, one of the defendants.

This is an action to declare a trust in real estate and for an accounting.

This is an action to declare a trust in real estate and for an accounting.

The plaintiff complains of the defendants, John Dooley and others, alleging its corporate existence under the laws of the state of Washington and its compliance with the laws of Alaska, authorizing it to do business therein; that it is engaged in constructing a railroad from Seward, Alaska, into the interior of that territory; that it is the owner of a right of way on the shore line of Resurrection Bay therein, under the act of June 30, 1906; that it is the owner in fee and…

This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a fall of gravel and sand from the roof of a drift in the mine of the defendants on Vault creek, in the Fairbanks recording district. The action was tried by the court; the attorneys for the respective parties expressly waiving a jury.

This is a suit involving the title to two lode mining claims in the Silver Bow basin, near Juneau, Alaska. The plaintiff, by its amended complaint, alleges discovery and location by its grantor in September, 1903, of these two claims as the Solo Lode mining claim and the Solo No. 1 lode mining claim.

This is a libel, in rem, against the steamer White Seal, and in personam, against the managing part owner, G. P. Sproul, for wages, under a written contract, alleging an unlawful discharge before the term of the contract had expired, and damages for cost of transportation and expenses incident thereto, in returning to Seattle from Fairbanks, Alaska.

This is an action brought by plaintiff to restrain the defendant corporation from constructing its ditch so as to interfere with and injure the ditch of plaintiff, and to enjoin said defendant corporation from maintaining its dam, or any dam or obstruction, that will prevent the flow of 2,000 inches of water through plaintiff’s ditch, and asking that the dam already constructed be abated, and praying for damages in the sum of $2,000.

This is an action for an accounting upon an account alleged to have been stated in the sum of $521.10, on or about the 25th day of August, 1909, at Chena, Alaska, upon which a payment of $50 had been made, leaving a balance of $471.10 due and owing since August 25, 1909. The answer denies the accounting, that the defendant is indebted in the sum of $471.10, or in any sum whatever, or that a payment of $50 was made upon the above account.

This is an action in replevin, wherein plaintiffs allege, among other things, that on and prior to the commencement of the action they were the owners and entitled to the possession of about 300 cords of 4 and 16 foot wood, situate on the Chatánika flats, near the mouth of Cleary creek, and being on public lands of the United States.

The plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendants, owners of the steamer Monarch, at Eagle, Alaska, on or about July 24, 1904, by the terms of which agreement the defendants agreed to transport by their steamer, the Monarch, a sawmill, etc., from Eagle to Chena, Alaska. The Monarch was on its way to Dawson, Y. T., and the agreement was that it would take the freight on its return trip.

A demurrer to the indictment in the above-entitled cause was filed by the defendant herein on the ground that the facts stated do not constitute a crime in the district of Alaska. The United States District Attorney, for the United States.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage, alleged to have been given in the form of a deed absolute by the defendants, Timmins and Roden, to one Bonnifield, and subsequently transferred to the plaintiff herein. Chas. F. Jones on September 3, 1907, optioned to John F. Timmins and Henry Roden, for the sum of $4,500, $2,000 cash, and $2,500 on or before March 3, 1908, a certain lot in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, Fourth judicial division.

The facts,'so far as the issues in this case are concerned, show that the plaintiff and other lien claimants, his assignors,. furnished labor and material for the reconstruction of a certain frame building, during the month of January, 1908, situate on' a lot owned at that' time by the defendant Caskey, but under option to Martin Moran, C. A. Wedgewood, and Frank Cullen, trustees for the Western Federation of Miners, who were then in possession and occupying the lot and…

This is an action by plaintiff, a municipal corporation, to collect the sum of $20 taxes, together with penalty for nonpayment of the same on lot 2 in block 1 of the town of Ketchikan for the year 1909.

This is an action to quiet title to a quartz location known as the Rex lode mining claim, situate on the left limit of Chatham creek, tributary to Cleary creek, in the Fairbanks recording precinct, Fourth judicial division, Alaska. The facts are stated in the opinion.

The District Attorney has moved in this case for a warrant to remove the defendant to the Western District of Washington for trial.

This is an action brought by the United States marshal of this division upon an indemnity bond executed by the defendants in his favor.

This is a supplemental proceeding to an action instituted by Henry Cook, to recover from the defendant Robinson the sum of $10,950. The complaint in the above-entitled action was filed in this court on the 18th day of July, 1910, and the Fairbanks Banking Company, a corporation doing business in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, was served with a writ of garnishment on the early morning of that date.

The court has for convenience combined the two titles, and has the following findings and rulings to make, with reference to the.proper items and procedure to be followed in this judicial division with reference to cost bills and proper disbursements, under chapter 52, pt. 4, of the Alaska Code: The first title is before the court by reason of having granted a continuance, on motion of attorney for defendant, at which time the court took under consideration the question of…

This is an action in support of an adverse claim against the issuance of United States patent to the defendant Mumford.

<p>Appeal and Error (§ 654*) — Record—Amendments.</p> <p>The transcript on appeal in this case does not contain any proof of service of the notice of appeal, nor does the notice of appeal have indorsed thereon proof of service, as required by the Alaska Code. Upon motion to dismiss the appeal for want of this proof of service, the appellant asked leave to supply or amend the record by affidavit showing due service of notice of appeal within the statutory time. Held, in this case there was no attempted proof of service filed within the statutory period; consequently there is nothing to amend, and this court has no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2819-2822; Dec'. Dig. § 654.*]</p>

This is a suit for the forfeiture of the Tokai Maru, a Japen.ese sailing schooner, her tackle, equipment, and cargo, for having been engaged in and used in unlawful fishing within three miles of the shore of Unalaska Island. Claimant has intervened, asserting his ownership of the respondent vessel, admitting that the respondent was a Japanese vessel; that her officers were men who were aliens, h> wit, Japanese.

By the complaint the plaintiff seeks to recover $1,200, being the total for three months’ rent at $400 per month alleged to be due 'from the defendant for the months ending September 15, October 15, and November 15, 1909, under the terms of a five-year lease made by plaintiff’s guardian, Kate White, December 23, 1907, of premises owned by plaintiff, to William M. Wilson, and by him assigned to the defendant.

This matter is now before the court on a motion to discharge the defendant from a writ of arrest issued against him in a civil action, upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff upon allegations extrinsic to the cause of action set out in the amended complaint. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

This is an action in which the plaintiff, a municipal corporation, seeks to foreclose a lien on the defendant’s property for' nonpayment of an assessment levied for the cost of the construction of a street upon which the said property of the defendant abuts.

This is a case in which the plaintiff seeks to recover against the defendant Olson the sum of $761.68, with interest at 8 per cent, per annum from June 20, 1909, for services rendered in cutting wood and hauling the same to different points along the Copper river, between November, 1908, and June, 1910.

The government, through its officers, brought two civil actions for $2,000 in each case, alleging said amounts to be due from the defendant as a license fee for having conducted a wholesale liquor business in the municipality of Nome, Second division of the district of Alaska. The same questions are involved in both cases, and they were argued and submitted together. To this complaint, the defendant has in each cdse interposed a demurrer.

This is a cause tried to the court without a jury, brought to set aside a deed alleged to be made by the defendant Thompson to the defendant Cummings in fraud of the former’s creditors, to subject the property therein named to the lien of a judgment obtained by the plaintiff, Meredith, against Thompson and another, for an injunction and general equitable relief.

The complaint in this action, so far as the same is material for the determination of the rights of the parties hereto, alleges : That the defendant the town of Juneau is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the district of Alaska. That all the other defendants, except the defendant Webster, are members of the common council of the said town of Juneau. That the defendant Webster is engaged in the business of driving piles.

<p>1. New Trial (§ 108*).</p> <p>Where there is no likelihood that a retrial would result in a different, verdict, a new trial refused.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 226, 227; Dec. Dig. § 108.*]</p> <p>2. New Trial (§ 97*) — Accident or Surprise.</p> <p>Where the accident or surprise occurs during the trial, the' party must make complaint at the time, and, if he proceeds with the trial without doing so, he waives his right thereby to a new trial upon that ground.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 195-198; Dec. Dig. § 97.*]</p>

Plaintiff brings this action and alleges in paragraph 4 of its complaint that plaintiff is now, and for a long time hitherto has been, the owner of and in the possession of that certain placer mining claim lying and being in the Cape Nome recording district, district of Alaska, and known as Bench No. 1, Moonlight creek, near Moonlight springs, and describes it by metes and bounds and courses and distances according to survey No. 608.

This action arose in the justice’s court at Chatanika, in the Fairbanks precinct, territory of Alaska.

A motion is made by the petitioner in intervention for judgment upon the pleadings, consisting of the petition of the intervener and the answer of the bank by its receivers. The petitioner alleges that he was appointed administrator of the estate of L. B. Johnson in February, 1909; that on January 5, 1911, the defendant, Washington-Alaska Bank, was adjudged insolvent, and a receiver appointed, who took possession of its property and assets.

This matter arises on the return of the United States marshal to an order to show cause sued out by plaintiff. The order was made the 12th day of September, 1910. That return the plaintiff now attacks as insufficient, and demands a further and more complete compliance on the part of the marshal.

This cause is before the court upon defendant’s demurrer to the amended complaint, which states that the Alaska Home Railway is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington, owning real and personal property in the territory of Alaska; that on October 8, 1909, it was the owner of certain described personal property adjacent to Valdez, Alaska, of the value of $10,000; that on the- day of August, 1909, the defendant wrongfully carried away and converted…

This is an action in equity, seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendants, restraining them from maintaining certain trestles and wharf on the shores of Orea Inlet, an arm of Prince William Sound, in front of plaintiffs’ upland holdings.

This suit is brought by the town of Valdez, to foreclose a tax lien upon a certain lot, charged to be owned by the defendant and located within the boundaries of said town, for the unpaid taxes for the years 1904 to 1910, inclusive.

A criminal information was filed against the defendant, and he was arrested for an alleged violation of the act of Congress entitled “An act to prohibit aliens from fishing in the waters of Alaska,” approved June 14, 1906 (34 Stat. 263).

The defendant has specially appeared in this case and moves to vacate the order for the publication of summons and to quash the summons published thereunder.

This matter concerns plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction.

This is an appeal prosecuted by the plaintiff from a judgment entered in the commissioner’s court for the precinct of Juneau, on the 29th day of May, 1911.

Plaintiff brings this action under section 475 of the Alaska Code of Civil Procedure, setting up title by virtue of a placer mining location made on the 3d day of January, 1899, in the Cape Nome recording district, district of Alaska, and known as Bench No. 1 Moonlight creek, near Moonlight springs, and giving a surveyed description by metes and bounds, courses and distances, and claiming to be in the possession of said mining claim, and that defendants, and each of them,…

<p>Municipal -Cobpobations (§ 983*) — Taxation.</p> <p>Following tile case of Town of Valdez v. Fish, 4 Alaska, 427, held, the town cannot levy a higher rate of penalty for nonpayment of delinquent taxes than 8 per centum per annum.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2144r-2146; Dec. Dig. § 983.*]</p>

Plaintiff brings this suit in support of its adverse filed in the local land office in opposition to the application for patent filed by defendant, being mineral survey No. 784. The suit is one to quiet title, plaintiff claiming to be in possession, and was tried to the court sitting as a chancellor.

This matter is now before the court upon a motion to make •the complaint more definite and certain. The motion goes to several of the allegations of the complaint; the only one of which was urged by the defendant upon brief and argument is that asking that the complaint more definitely describe the lode claims, for the recovery of which suit is brought.

The petitioners, Robert Ashland and Andrew Beck, have made application to the court under section 465, pt. 2, Carter’s Codes of Alaska, as amended, for a license to sell intoxicating liquor at retail in the town of Chitina. The application complies with the requirements of that section, save in one respect.

This is an action for a writ of mandate, requiring J. R. Willis, as collector of customs for the district of Alaska, to issue to the plaintiff a shipper’s manifest for the shipment from Juneau, Alaska, to Seattle, Wash., of one grizzly bear pelt or hide.

This matter is before the court upon defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint, which was filed in this court February 1, 1912, alleging that both the defendant companies were organized under the laws of the state of Washington; that the Hubbard-Elliott Copper Mines Development Company, hereinafter called the development company, was organized in 1904 with a capital stock of 1,500,000 shares of the par value of $1 each; that the Hubbard-Elliott Copper Company,…

This suit is one for the possession of ground alleged to be a portion of certain unpatented placer mining claims, to enjoin defendants from mining it and from diverting water from that part of said claims in which they assert no right other than to take the water to the portion in dispute, and for damages on account of plaintiff’s ouster from the disputed area. Setting up location of the claims in 1902, the complaint contains the usual allegations.

This is a criminal action against the defendant for charging unjust and unreasonable rates for services in the transportation of passengers and freight from Skagway, Alaska, to Dawson, Yukon territory, and way points.

The indictment in this case contains six counts. Counts 1 and 2 charge violations of sections 2 and 3 of an act entitled “An act to protect trade and commerce against Unlawful restraints and monopolies,” commonly known as the Sherman Act (26 Stat. 209); counts 3 and 4 charge violations of section 1 of an act entitled “An act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states” (Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847 [U. S. Comp.

The indictment in this action charges a violation of sections 2 and 3 of an act entitled “An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies” (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200]).

Count 1 of the indictment in this case charges the defendants with the crime of combining and conspiring to restrain trade and commerce by unlawfully securing control and ownership of the defendant corporation of all the transportation facilities between the northerly extremity of Lynn Canal and the headwaters of the Yukon river.

<p>1. Monopolies (§ 31*) — Indictment—Conspiracy in Restraint oe Trade — Contract.</p> <p>Defendants are charged in the indictment with conspiracy to monopolize the coal business at Skagway, Alaska, and an actual monopolization thereof. On demurrer to the indictment, held, the facts charged in the indictment do not warrant an inference that the carrying out of an alleged agreement described in the indictment would in any way restrain trade, raise prices, or prevent any other person or persons from freely engaging in the coal business at Skagway. The indictment should state facts from which, it must be inferred that trade will be restrained or competition stifled. Demurrer sustained.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dee. Dig. § 31.*]</p> <p>2. Monopolies (§ 31*) — Indictment—Conspiracy in Restraint oe Trade.</p> <p>The indictment must be tested, not by the general recitals and averments thereof, although in the words of the statute, but by the specific acts or particular facts which are alleged to have been actually done and committed by tbe accused, if the particular acts or facts charged do not, as a matter of law, constitute contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states, or a monopoly, or an attempt to monopolize any part of such trade and commerce, no amount of averments and allegations that the accused engaged in a combination and made contracts in restraint of sucb trade or commerce, or monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the same, will avail to sustain the indictment. Whether the accused is charged with an offense is to be determined by the particular acts or facts set forth, and not by tbe conclusions of tbe pleader, although asserted in the words of the statute.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dec. Dig. § 31.*]</p>

<p>1. Criminal Daw (§ 97*) — Jurisdiction—Indictment and Information — Commerce—Carriers.</p> <p>The indictment charges the defendants with exacting excessive rates for carrying freight from Skagway, Alaska, to Dawson, Yukon territory. On demurrer, held that, since the indictment does not charge that the exaction was wholly in American territory, the court is without jurisdiction, and the demurrer is sustained.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 177-189, 191; Dec. Dig. § 97.*]</p> <p>2. Commerce (§ 89*) — Interstate—Carriers—Wharves.</p> <p>The whqrf at Skagway, Alaska, used by the White Pass Bail-way as its terminal receiving and discharging dock, thereby became and is a part of its railway property engaged in interstate and interforeign commerce, and any contemporaneous discrimination in rates charged shippers under substantially similar circumstances and conditions is a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and its amendments and subject to criminal i>rosecution without being first submitted to the Interstate Commerce Commission, for the reason that the published rates are presumptively the lawful rates and the rates which bind the carrier until changed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Commerce, Dec. Dig. § 89.*]</p>

This is an action in equity to restrain the defendant from constructing a fish trap in front of land alleged to be owned by the plaintiff.

This matter comes before the court at this time on motion to dismiss the appeal to this court from the justice’s court.

This is a motion to set aside an order heretofore entered in this cause forfeiting the bail of the defendants herein for nonappearance for arraignment.

The plaintiff in this proceeding petitions for a writ of review, to review an order entered by J. E: Coffer, commissioner and ex officio justice of the peace for Hot Springs precinct, on the 3d day of September, 1912, wherein the plaintiff was adjudged guilty of contempt of the commissioner’s court of that precinct, by reason of certain matters contained in an affidavit filed in a criminal action pending therein on the 19th day of April, 1912, and adjudging that the…

The complaint attempts to state two causes of action: The first to have the marriage contract declared void ab initio; the second for a dissolution of the marriage contract on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment.

On May 20, 1912, two informations were filed by the district attorney (Nos. 932C and 933C), each charging defendants with conducting a bottling works business without first having applied for or obtained a license so to do, as required by the Code of Alaska, § 460. The first information specifically charges the bottling of large quantities of beer, mineral water, etc. The second charges the bottling of numerous bottles of liquid compounds charged with carbonic acid gas.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree under section 3 of the Alaska Penal Code, and was extradited from Mexico and brought to Juneau for trial. At the time of his arraignment, the defendant made application to the court to be released on bail, pursuant to the terms of section 205, pt. 2, of the Alaska Criminal Code.

The above-entitled actions, which were consolidated for purposes of trial, were to foreclose separate liens for labor claimed upon a dump or mass of mineral-bearing sands, gravels, earth, and the minerals therein, on the upper part of the Wild Goose Association placer claim on Engineer creek, in the Fairbanks precinct.

The plaintiff claims the right to use the waters of Baker’s Pup, a tributary of Mastodon creek, in the Circle precinct, to the extent of 400 miner’s inches, taking the water from a point about 50 feet below the upper boundary line of discovery placer claim on said stream, and carrying it by a ditch, about one mile in length, along the left limit of Mastodon creek to claim No. 19 above discovery on said Mastodon creek.

This .case was submitted to the court by stipulation on agreed statement of facts; N. H. Castle, Assistant United States Attorney, signing the stipulation on behalf of the plaintiff, and O. D. Cochran, Esq., on behalf of the defendant.

Plaintiff brings this suit in equity for the purpose of impressing a trust upon certain funds now in the hands of John Sundback, as duly appointed clerk of the court of the district of Alaska, Second division, and alleges in its bill: That the defendant Johan Tiberg, during the month of July, 1910, was in the employ of plaintiff as foreman of the night shift in mining upon a certain placer claim in this division.

The foundation of this proceeding is a certain paper filed on the 17th day of June, 1913, reading; “To Honorable Robert W. Jennings, Judge of said court: The undersigned John Rustgard, United States Attorney in and for said division No. 1, respectfully represents and shows as follows: Then follow five paragraphs stating that Otoji Nagao procured from E. W. Pettit, clerk of this court, by fraud and misrepresentation a license to practice medicine, and that he is now…

In this case there are as defendants several corporations and several individuals. A separate demurrer to each count in the indictment has been filed by each defendant, but the only question before the court now is whether or not the demurrer to counts 1 and 2 should be sustained.

This is an action by the plaintiff to foreclose various liens for labor alleged to have been performed in the development and improvement of the “Pioneer quartz mining claim, situate at the head of Fairbanks creek, on the left limit thereof, on the divide between said creek and Wolf creek”; the plaintiff claiming a lien on the premises for labor performed by himself, and also claiming as the assignee of several other laborers.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sabate, deceased, against the defendants, to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged in the complaint to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants.

The plaintiff brings this action against the defendant, alleging that on the 18th day of April, 1913, the defendant filed a sworn complaint in the office of T. A. Jones, commissioner and ex officio justice of the peace for Copper Center precinct, territory of Alaska, Third division, charging the plaintiff with the alleged crime of bartering for and having in his possession a silver fox during the prohibited season; that thereafter defendant caused a warrant to be issued by…

All the property claimed by plaintiff in this action is claim- • ed under and by virtue of three certain deeds to him as follow^: Deed from Robert Harrison, dated July 11, 1911, for “three certain cabins or small dwellings situated along the beach road and near what is known as Smallwood’s beach store”; deed from the Cleaver estate, dated November 2, 1912, for “No. 8 cabin or house 20x24 feet, three rooms and attic and shed attached, located on south side of beach walk,…

This is a special proceeding under chapter 69, Taws of 1913, territory of Alaska, to procure a decree of this court foreclosing a lien for delinquent taxes upon certain lots in the town of Juneau.

This is a mandamus proceeding brought by the Dispatch Publishing Company, a domestic corporation, against Charles E. Davidson, as secretary of Alaska. To the amended complaint a' general demurrer has been interposed, and said demurrer is now before the court for determination. The demurrer admits all the allegations of fact which are well pleaded. It does not admit conclusions • of law.

This action is brought to recover the possession of certain machinery and other property placed by plaintiff on the lode mining claims belonging to defendants, near Valdez, Alaska. The case was tried before the court, without a jury. Plaintiff held an option agreement in writing to purchase the mining claims for the sum of $100,000.

<p>1. Parties (§§ 6, 21*) — Real Party in Interest.</p> <p>Every action shall he prosecuted in the name of or against the real party in interest.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Parties, Cent. Dig. §§ 6, 7, 28; Dec. Dig. §§ 6, 21.*]</p> <p>2. Contracts (§ 155*) — Construction.</p> <p>A contract will be most strongly construed against him who prepared it, or who used the words giving rise to the dispute.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. § 736;, Dec. Dig. § 155.*]</p> <p>3. Mines and Minerals (§ 83*) — Contracts.</p> <p>Where the defendant, under an option to buy, agreed to d© development work on mining claims, and also agreed to remove the pay ore encountered and dispose of it, but was to have1 an allowance of “the reasonable cost of mining and treatment deducted from the proceeds thereof,” it was entitled to a credit for the expense of taking out the ore, together with transportation and smelter charges. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the balance.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Mines and Minerals, Cent. Dig. §§ 212, 214, 215; Dec. Dig. § 83.*]</p>

This is a proceeding seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus, compelling the United States marshal of this division of Alaska to execute an alias writ of restitution issued on December 12, 1913, out of the court of the United States commissioner of Juneau precinct, in the forcible entry and detainer case of Thomas H. Ashby v. John Hyde.