There is a location notice recorded for the Humbert lode claim dated Jan 8, 1904, located by George U. Young. The claim is 1500’ x 600’, 750’ east/west from the discovery shaft. The claim states it is situated 2 feet northerly from the station Italian Spring and parallels the Italian mine on the north line of the Italian Mine.
There is a former Humbert location notice by James Lowry dated Jan 1 1903, recorded Jan 12 1903. A full sized east west lode with 750’ running from discovery. The description states the claim is situated about 600 feet northerly from the Italian Spring and parallels the Italian mine on the north line of the Italian Mine. This is either the same lode as described in 1901 notice with a better location description, or a new location that is in sync with the 1902 Puritan location. Regardless, neither can be consistent on the ground today with the representation made my Mineral Survey 2424.
There is yet another former Humbert location notice that is dated Dec 3, 1901. James Lowry, recorded this notice March 1 1902. This location describes the claim as being situated about 300 yards in a N. west direction from Italian Spring & 300 yards N. east of Puritan mine.
Possibilities:
- There are three Italian lode claims in the Thumb Butte District. -Not Happening.
- Each one replaced the former in time. The former expiring or officially abandoned prior to new location notices being filed. -Not Happening.
- This is simply apart of the paper fixing with Lowry, Sarano, Sharpneck, Sam Hill, George Young, with E.M. Sanford. -Getting warmer.
- George Young claimed the ground he was leasing from Lowry-Hill as his own claim, to keep up appearances for the stock scheme, calling it the same name as the recorded former lode. -Highly likely to be what we are looking at here.
You would have to be nuts to think the same spring relocated itself on the ground along with the surface of the claim, and up to a mile northerly, to fit George U. Young location description.
To try to understand this is to say something parallels something, maybe, and okay there are multiple Italian Springs, or a long one, or a ‘fictitious Spring’ at a ‘Station’ 1.5-2.5 miles north like say Summit Station, that extends south to this area, which is more than impossible, but all according to mineral survey M.S. 2424. Different Italian ground (original), different Humbert, different Puritan, exactly. This is all fictitious.
The last Humbert lode from Young in 1904 is what is incorporated into the patent by 2424.
These dimensions are noticed at 1500’ x 600’ running east/west 750’ from discovery shaft. J.J. Fisher has depicted a discovery shaft on this M.S. 2424. The centerline from Fisher’s disc. then runs 576 east and only 700 feet westerly, not 750.
The east truncation at the Iron Mask would make some sense if these claims existed in this presentation with each other, Since the Iron Mask would exist senior in right, being located in 1902 and amended in 1903. The truncation depicts a footage of 224 feet. 224 + 576 =800’. But is the amended legitimate or theoretical also?
The notice for the Humbert or Italian makes no mention of sharing an east boundary with the Iron Mask lode.
The west boundary of the Humbert however, being reduced 50 feet from the claim by Fisher’s 2424 presentation, makes little to no sense. The senior right to the ground of Humbert lode to its west end line at the Protection #3 lode claim should be acknowledged by the 2424 field notes. The field notes to mineral survey 2424 are silent as to any conflict between the Humbert and Protection #3 lodes.
Humbert’s junior position is acknowledged to the east, but not to the west. As platted, the east position is increased 50’, while the west end line is cut short 50’. Ground not covered by the location notice (no amendment) was added by Fisher to abut the concept of the claims configuration in relation to each other. The is no conflict or modification or explanation identified in official field notes for the Humbert lode claim. There is no conflict listed in the official field notes for the Iron Mask as to Humbert.
