The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1868-11-21
IMPORTANT MINING DECISION 81 chi1f
14'-- TusTYcE THos. ]. BOWERS

4 yEpr t.sal
= 4Ec,.a aud Iohn c. Henley, Esqs were co COINS
fnr Defendants AS the action lnsoNou qa,,hers
Tho decision of which may be OF lntefes, 70 Ill 80 20
t az laaaI profession and to miners, as Wen a =,
t,s We have concluded to publish Synopsis AZ, ~
tra trial We should have done so last wees Da 800; ~,
lime between the rendition OF the Vefdic. % a no,
and the issang OF our paper on last - :.atement
s,flcient to enable us 10 prepare d pioIe
of the facts and the rulings OF the Court.
| The nla;ntifTs A. d. Saunders ct al. on Tue 800
day of August 1868. filed their complain " 80 re-
ment against the defendants D. carey CT S' ,aimS
cover possession of portion OF n'e I..i.. i,'
situated in Elk creek, Elk Creek Mining Disito -
Boise county Idaho Territory, about nan hi l;,,
IDAHO City The complaint alleged tiia' piin h,
and those to whose interests and estates 'uss la
Succeeded were in the rightful, peaceabie ana eAo
sive possession OF said mining ground run ,s.h
month OF November 1862 until on or ABOUT tue io =
day of July 1868. and owned used worhei AM sI Isss
tbe that on or about the 18th day OF Juy 1000
the defendants while plaintiffs were SO III ponseso /,
of said mining ground, unawfuuy' wroiislu', o.:
without right or title, entered INTO ahu t,in,1ef
mining ground and ous.ei and cjected pi"iiliiiS
therefrota and that defendants since theh nave
wrongfully and unawfuy withheld the PosseH1041 "a
said mining ground $50, a.. ,a;,,f H.
were the owners of said mining ground; ana dei'ou
that plaintiffs III the possession o. o. "oiAed "
used or .linel said ground, Tor hA months pFi"i
the 18th day Of jaly, 1865 ana denied 'l4a 1.'iA
were entitled TO the possession uI said eronho; ana
denied that defendants wrongiully or dh.t"lil! GU
tered into and upon said ground or THAI the! uAA"
flliY withheld the pOSsessIuH Vi tlo sa'A'- +"4 ~
PENDANTS il their answer admitted that Oh or ABOUT
the Sd day OF june 1865 they pe4ceauy entered mo
and upon said mining ground ana alleged Li4I t'iF
same WAS then vacant ANA unoccupicd mineral lands
belonging TO the United States. subject 10 location
and that they have since continued III the poss, son
of the same And for ne" matter, de'tita@h.s aver
red that said mining claims are situated III liz creek
Mining District III Boise county, ana max AZ INC ua~
hereinafter mentioned the following mining rules
and regulations passed and adopted which nave
been eser since observed by the miners Of SAIL DIS
rr.t Us regulating the location anu irAGre uf mining
cialins situate therein. The following MAS adopted
the ii day OF December. 1865;
Sc u All claims shalt be considered fJffe.iei u hut
one day in seven after te hsst aay Is: Ap' un-
I'll the iAifd day Of December !o.Io"tus
The following MAS pas .ed aud adopted by tle min
ers OF SAID District ga the 4>tA day Is! JaAe 1854:
SEC - This, all bar each cfc,A aai Ai! e.a., sall
be- deemed lad over tai n5I fiusr representation iaf
all time To colr WA-uetvf cannot Ice pauIc! fE
the of twenty-five oruts peF !aeG every twc'fe
hours and under s.A nth pressure for hall ad s.lch
claim, r, titan ,Aisty inches of ~A:cs shall c5n'ti
tate sluceAeai; ~ bsc aai cfc.A cAiaas. "a. less
than forty iucirs shail constitute - slu.cv head,
Defendants further ALLEGED tia, T.. more than tUJ
moaths prior - the l5su day % July. lsG>. thcrc
were more Than fort. inches ~ free water accessible
II and running uTc- sa!J mining 5sruund aAA that
other water Was accessible - A;.d cJs4H have buen
procured said gruual. for twcAyy Axe cratp pr
inca. less. twelve Euars, Let-al44ls further
alleged that plaintiffs. long prior tu S.A dses a.: Jaly
l5us and Juar 81. lsss hal abandoned s4li mining
claims atd hal also forfeited any rght which they
mas have lad thereto Dy failing .aI refusing urk
q. mine the same or any Isg. Thereof ~ accordance
w1th said tn.-4nS laws. ra!rs Aua n, E.A'.aas.
The following i~cts were established ;e trial.
Tia; the plaintiffs located sail lns: claims ga ar
abuu; The a.st day a.. November. l>3@. - placing
no:.ce AZ s.c upper as.d loser end. su.a;9oc with
III" customs aild ueAEes ttu - +1.e a1su lad them
recorded within lea days thcgcs.-r ;44a: tc chains
were II t.e usual and ordinary als~ that 3, the I.uc
of ihe Iuo2ilon ~ dc rl4us I4iu4ae Laws. g4cs
.aSzE 44s 4 F.. -.
distract that plaintiffs and their - as worried tie
claims from the t4n4e ~ %eAgu.l tip thr month IL
February 1885, t4a; ~ tc Year >G5 plaintiffs leased
the claims - other PARTIES who worked fhef u -
laws above So: forth was repealed june lss& sad
that no other section az: the mining Laws tyesr bod a
forfeiture Tor i~AuTe :" comply with tae a44Hne
rules ana regulations ~ Tie district Plaintiffs
;lE"A that they hal uo; abandoned thu GROUND a..l
;ha; they never intended to abandon. a.. II u.s. far.
theF ~ e'!HeAr" that plaintiffs hal I4at las4sl ug
portion at tHc months u; MAJ as44 June ut th+n
year there were NOR" taAn forts luch,= II water run
nHS orr The l9~cr half -! the ground ss3.el water
was SOLD from the Christie p.tC a.at,.es al wayk
on the Ear: that plaintiffs Veg, Iag uqsa-e in t.c
Christie DITCH. and a1Eo oeaeI another Ditch ga /
the west side a! l.k creek wA.,h covered sasd itu
ing ground: that a.er defendants hal gone az, ,l,,
ground tn plaintiffs wanted them to tax lcasc for
3 nominal consideration. which defendants declined
~ do: and also thai ni the uA.as... il, a rsn.
'orsi!uu with defendants. about jUly ~ Au.ts last
wanted defendants ~ take lease. AMI stated - ;hcrn
hat he did not care haS much gold they took .r,, /
but that plaintiffs wanted Ia bold tLo dumping riel.
20 the EronaI.
The Court. at ihc request 81 plaintiffs caunsc, /
gave the following Instructions.
The light to mining claim vests lev the taking In
ocordaEco with the local rules usage, %, customs In
oFce st the time % the taking
" here party has once acquired riehtn,, r,,.sc.
ton ca location to mining claim no 4uni,, - .l,
luentiy passed eau drcst him ~ that ri unlea. h.
assisted IN the passlG" # SAID law: ia which case he
would be considered "a party to ihrcsutsact.
"A tor @ituTc "t mining caila cannot take ,arn iv
he ihIur" Ia comply with any mining rule IT tcaul;
ION unless the miuug rule regulation speci,l1y tr
1es that otcouriiance with tn" shall uef
IS, and be- deemed a cause of forfeiture
abandonment Is question Of &C; and intention and
axes place when the ground is Left iy the l,catnr or
wnet. without any intention Of returning or maxine
my future of it,"
AT tae request OF Defendants counsel the Court
ihohg other Instructions. gave the following:
The inference of abandonment may arise from a ain
~ ACT "a wen AZ from series of acts continued thro h
long space ct time 1t is fact ;o hc determined from
n' particular circumstances Of each That time is
w. 'e essence of an abandonment. 1t clam IL ahan
ohed even Tor moment the abandonment j. AZ com,
'rte rs IT II had been for months
The Court then, on its motion, instructed tho
ury as follows ~
IL u well settled principle of law that nlaintig IN
~ "c"oH :" eJcctnent. must recover, il all upon the
rehRn oi his own title aid upon the weak meas ~
,'a " us "'cr'Fy When however the title Is once
o"n 70 NC III the Plaintiffs, those under whom n.
Jams, he Is presumed in law to continue The owner
MI. II snail he shown that he has parted with il In
Ome method known to the law
III 'is case II Is settled by the pleangs that a some
prior 10 SIX months preceding the 18th day of tpl
" d. 1908, plaintiffs fhc owners Of and in tho ~,
e'son OF the ground described in the complaint herein
nu "'iue' me RUE o law as above laid down the said