System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Factuality: Did the model extract pertinent and accurate background knowledge without any misinformation when factual knowledge retrieval is needed? Is the response supported by reliable evidence or citation of the source of its information?
Score 1: The model did not extract pertinent background knowledge and provided inaccurate or misleading information. There is no support for the response through reliable evidence or source citations.
Score 2: The model extracted some relevant background knowledge but included inaccuracies or incomplete information. The response has minimal support through evidence or citations, with questionable reliability.
Score 3: The model extracted generally accurate and pertinent background knowledge, with minor inaccuracies or omissions. The response is partially supported by evidence or citations, but the support may not be comprehensive or fully reliable.
Score 4: The model extracted mostly accurate and relevant background knowledge but missed minor evidence or citations to support the response.
Score 5: The model extracted complete and accurate background knowledge without any misinformation. The response is fully supported by reliable evidence or citations that are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive in addressing the instruction.
Conciseness: Is the response presented in a concise manner for the reader without any unnecessary information?
Score 1: The response is highly redundant or contains a lot of unnecessary information, requiring a complete rewrite for optimal clarity and efficiency.
Score 2: The response lacks conciseness and needs a substantial rewrite for better optimization.
Score 3: The response is somewhat concise but includes unnecessary information, requiring some edits for improved optimization.
Score 4: The response is mostly concise but could benefit from minor edits for better optimization.
Score 5: The response is optimally concise and does not contain any unnecessary information, requiring no further optimization.
[Instruction]
Mill vs Gartner
This case is about a dispute over the right to dig clay on a piece of land. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, Allen, had only a verbal agreement, or a "parol license," to enter the land and take clay. The defendant claimed that he had an actual leasehold interest in the land, which entitled him to dig clay. The court found that the defendant's defense was sufficient, as it constituted a lease of the land for the purpose of taking clay. The court also found that the defendant's offer of testimony was admissible, and that the testimony was sufficient to submit to the jury. The court concluded that the trial judge had properly ruled on the case and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Smith vs Mill Company
The case is about the interpretation of a clause in a lease agreement between the lessors and lessees regarding the payment of taxes on coal in the ground. The clause in question stated that the lessors must pay all taxes imposed on the coal in the ground. The court held that the meaning of the clause was clear and plain, and that it was an absolute obligation on the part of the lessors to pay the taxes. The court also considered the effect of deeds of conveyance made after the lease agreement and concluded that they did not change the rights of the parties under the lease agreement. The court further held that the lessees still had the exclusive privilege to take the coal and were subject to the same duties as under the lease agreement, and the lessors still held all the beneficial interests that they held under the lease agreement. The court concluded that the positive agreement of the lessors to pay the taxes was not dependent on any technical aspect of their interest in the coal and was absolute, peremptory, and without condition.

Gartner vs Baker
The case of "Opinion, Min Justice Mitchell" was an ejectment lawsuit brought by plaintiffs against defendants who claimed to hold possession of the plaintiffs' land as lessees. The case revolved around a lease agreement made in 1864 between the plaintiffs (who were minors at the time and represented by their guardians) and the defendants, who were lessees of the land. The lease was made with the approval of a special act of assembly. The defendants claimed that the title was res adjudicata and the judge at the trial agreed, except for the continuance of the lease beyond twenty years, which he held to still be in force as a matter of law. The remaining specifications of error raised four questions, including the constitutionality of the act of assembly, the execution of the lease in accordance with the act, the validity of the lease, and whether it had expired by its own terms. These questions were resolved in favor of the defendants and the decree was affirmed by the court in a brief per curiam opinion, referring to the absence of fraud.

Which of these cases are a good fit for "Find me cases where the dispute involved involve mine leases."? Include a summary for each.

[Ground truth Answer]
The cases that fit the criteria of disputes involving mine leases are:

1. Smith vs Mill Company: This case is about the interpretation of a clause in a lease agreement between the lessors and lessees regarding the payment of taxes on coal in the ground. The clause in question stated that the lessors must pay all taxes imposed on the coal in the ground. The court held that the meaning of the clause was clear and plain, and that it was an absolute obligation on the part of the lessors to pay the taxes. The court also considered the effect of deeds of conveyance made after the lease agreement and concluded that they did not change the rights of the parties under the lease agreement. The lessees still had the exclusive privilege to take the coal and were subject to the same duties as under the lease agreement, and the lessors still held all the beneficial interests that they held under the lease agreement. The court concluded that the positive agreement of the lessors to pay the taxes was not dependent on any technical aspect of their interest in the coal and was absolute, peremptory, and without condition.

2. Gartner vs Baker: This was an ejectment lawsuit brought by plaintiffs against defendants who claimed to hold possession of the plaintiffs' land as lessees. The case revolved around a lease agreement made in 1864 between the plaintiffs (who were minors at the time and represented by their guardians) and the defendants, who were lessees of the land. The lease was made with the approval of a special act of assembly. The defendants claimed that the title was res adjudicata and the judge at the trial agreed, except for the continuance of the lease beyond twenty years, which he held to still be in force as a matter of law. There were four questions in the case, including the constitutionality of the act of assembly, the execution of the lease in accordance with the act, the validity of the lease, and whether it had expired by its own terms. These questions were resolved in favor of the defendants and the decree was affirmed by the court in a brief per curiam opinion, referring to the absence of fraud.

[Assistant's Response]
Based on your request for cases involving disputes related to mine leases, the following cases are relevant:

### 1. Mill vs. Gartner
**Summary**: This case centers on a dispute over the right to extract clay from a piece of land. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant, Allen, only possessed a verbal agreement, termed a "parol license," allowing him to enter the land for clay extraction. In contrast, the defendant asserted that he held a leasehold interest in the land, granting him the right to dig clay. The court ultimately sided with the defendant, ruling that his defense constituted a valid lease for the purpose of extracting clay. The court also deemed the defendant's testimony admissible and sufficient for jury consideration, affirming the trial judge's ruling.

### 2. Smith vs. Mill Company
**Summary**: This case involves the interpretation of a lease agreement clause concerning the obligation of lessors to pay taxes on coal located on the leased land. The court found the clause to be clear and imposed an absolute obligation on the lessors to cover all taxes related to the coal. It also addressed the impact of subsequent deeds of conveyance, concluding that they did not alter the rights established in the lease. The lessees retained exclusive rights to extract the coal, while the lessors maintained their beneficial interests. The court reaffirmed that the lessors' obligation to pay taxes was unconditional and not dependent on the specifics of their interest in the coal.

### 3. Gartner vs. Baker
**Summary**: In this ejectment lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought to reclaim possession of their land from defendants who claimed to be lessees. The case stemmed from a lease agreement established in 1864, which was made with the approval of a special act of assembly when the plaintiffs were minors. The defendants argued that the title was res adjudicata, and the trial judge agreed, except regarding the lease's continuation beyond twenty years, which he ruled was still legally valid. The court resolved several legal questions in favor of the defendants, including the constitutionality of the act of assembly and the validity of the lease, ultimately affirming the decree and noting the absence of fraud.

### Conclusion
Both **Mill vs. Gartner** and **Smith vs. Mill Company** are directly related to disputes over mine leases, specifically regarding the extraction of clay and coal, respectively. **Gartner vs. Baker**, while not strictly about mineral extraction, involves a lease agreement and the rights of lessees, making it tangentially relevant to the broader context of lease disputes. These cases illustrate various legal principles concerning leasehold interests, obligations under lease agreements, and the interpretation of contractual clauses in the context of mineral rights.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: