Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1873-12-13

ieOoiu VI tuo auhca cihiHlS tnat the no.
tices placed on the ground we're not lit
terally Transcribed. Certainly it is the
usual mode of recording mining claims
to make literal transcript Of the notice,
But do not know that this can be re-
garded as essential. Such reason would
impart no fuller or better notice to SUBJ
sequent corners than this recorded; and
the only object Of the record is to impart
such notice. The only end it is expected
to subserve is to put bona fde inauirers
upon the track Of such information as
Will protect them from loss of labor and
means expended, on ground previously
appropriated. If then it contains enough
IN connection with the monuments on
the ground, to which recourse must al
ways be hard for complete information,
to distinctly notify subsequent corners of
what is claimed, it fulfills every essential
requirement OF the law.
Besides this the miners of the district
had the right to decide how the record
should be kept, and they approved the
course which was adopted. A more seri-
GUS objection to this record is that it does
not describe the ground which was
marked off by the stakes.
The written part describes the claim as
extending one hundred and fifty feet from
the discovery stake to the stake set by
Box. southwark Of the discovery stake,
when in fact that distance was three
hundred and fifty feet. Opposite the
names of Gibbons, Crow and Chamber.
lain, which simply contains the figures
1000, and the initials Nv. H." which
in that connection appear to have no
meaning whatever. Hamblin's claim,
which was of a segregated two hundred
feet, is not divided by any line from that
of Sill, while Sill, who was a locator in
common with Gibbons, Grow and Cham
berlain of the eight hundred feet north
of discovery point, is divided by line
from his cotenants. Finally the outside
company's claim Of eight hundred feet
of Leavitt and Bunker.
A. Hamblin and Twins is compromised
in the plat, which in connection with
the record purports to cover linear ex-
tent of only nine hundred and fifty feet.
As to the mistake in the written part
of the record, that is easily accounted
for, either in the original notice placed
upon the ground, or in the copy taken
by Sherwood, for the purpose of record,
or in transcrlbing that copy, the words
discovery stake were used for discovery
claim, by mistake. Or, perhaps, as there
was stake at each end of the discovery
claim, that at the south end might have
been referred to in one part of the notice
and that at the north end in the other
part.
The mistakes in the plat are past ac-
counting for, unless the record has been
altered, more extensively than the wit.
nesses say since 1t was first made.
But it is an all sufficient answer to the
objections, based upon these mistakes
and discrepancies, to say that the record
refers to the monuments on the ground,
and those monuments control and deter
mine the ground located, as long as they
remain or their position can be estab.
lished.
l conclude then that the location and
record of the claims on the Panaca ledge
covering the ground from the stake
eight hundred feet north of the discov-
cry point to the south end OF
claim No. II, south of the discovery
claim we're valid and sufficient, and that
the respective locators held the ground
either segregated or in common according
to the stakes set and marked by the sur
veyor in June 1854, with right to swing
their several locations upon the vein,
according to its true course when devel-
oped, making Sill, Gibbons, Grow
and Chamberlain tenants in COM
mon at that time Of eight hun
bred feet of what is now known as
the Raymond 4 Ely vein. extending east
IF Aioonv ,,ainf nd ,p,1>1,,, d. -.
fer, Thos. Box, Thos. M. Box, Sher-
wood. Vandermark and Shut, tenants in
the order in which they are named, OF
the segregated claims extending west of
that point thirteen hundred and fifty
feet.
The right to those parcels of the vein
being then vested in the locators named,
it could be lost in one or other of two
ways only.
First. By forfeiture for failure to com.
ply with the requirements of the mining
laws as to work.
Second. By abandonment.
What were the requirements of the
mining law as to work on claims?
They were all embraced in Articles 5,
and II above quoted. The most that
was required was that leach company
must do one faithful days work on their
claim each month, after the same shall
have been located one year" subject to
the penalty of forfeiture. That is to say
without any work whatever, all these
claims were good until April Is, 1864.
But by the consolidation contract OF
July I'd, 1864, Hamblin, Sherwood, Shut,
Vandermark, and the Boxes. had formed
themselves into a company for the pur-
pose of working their claims in common.
And this contract embraced by the terms
and in the intention of the parties, the
ground of Pulsifer, which Hamblin ex-
pected to purchase. aud did actually pur-
chase before the completion of the work.
Whether or not their contract effectua.
ted the full intention Of the parties, and
constituted them tenants in common OF
the thirteen hundred and fifty feet of
ground described, in the proportions Of
their original several interests, it is not
material to inquire. 1t certainly had the
effect of making the work done in pursu-
ance of it apply to the ground of the SUBJ
scribing parties in due proportions,
whether their interests are several or in
common.
And if there is question whether the
deed of Pulsifer to Hamblin, of July 18th,
effected conveyance OF his entire one
hundred and fifty feet, there is no doubt
that it vested in Hamblin an interest in
that one hundred and fifty feet, which,
SO far as the application of the
work is concerned, is the same as
if he has owned the whole.
Under this contract nearly thousand
dollars worth of work was done on
and about the Panaca shaft, more than
three times as much as was required to
bring the claims of the company within
the provisions of Art. - of the mining
law, and give them vested right to the
ground which could be lost only by aban-
donment.
This would have been equally true il
there had never been any consolidation
contract or deed from Pulsifer to Ham
lin, and il it should be decided that the
1ooators balJ tha;r claims oocordsou 20