528 FEDERAL REPORTER. �lished, but which is actually in force at the time of the loca- tion. The regulation must be in accordanee, and not in con- flict with, the laws of the United States and of the state of Cahfomia; and the laws of California provide that, "in ac- tions respecting mining claims, proof must be admitted of the. customs, usages, or regulations established and in force at the bar or diggiugs embracing such claim; and such cus- toms, usages, or regulations when not in conflict with the laws of this state, must govern the decision of the action." This provision is still in force, exoept so far as its operation is limited by the act of congress. �One of the locations under which plaintifif claims was made November 10, 1875, and the claim was relocated December 15, 1876, each time 300 feet wide on each side of the Iode ; the notice in terms purporting to locate it under the act of congress allowing such location. �It is claimed by the defendant that there was, at the time of the location and relocation, a regulation in force in that district limiting the claim to 50 feet on each side of the vein, and that the location of 300 feet is therefore void. Now, whether there was or not such a regulation or custom in force at the time is a question of fact to be found by the jury from ail of the evidence in the case on that point. �The defendant, to show a regulation limiting the location to 50 feet on each side, introduced the minutes of proceeding of a miners' meeting in the district, held July 10, 1860, in which there is a rule making such limitation, and minutes of .meetings held at various times subsequently, amending the rules, but continuing this rule in force, down to and including November 13, 1867, at which time the last action in respect to modifying the rules and regulations was had till December 30, 1876, which is after said location and relocation, and nine years after any meeting amending said rules. At said meeting of December 30, 1876, the miners declined to adopt the "United States mining laws ;" and no action upon the sub- ject ol rules is shown to have been since had by any miners' meeting. �The plaintiff, to meet this testimony, introduced the min- ��� �
