The Elk Mountain pilot., 1882-05-04
WHAT CONSTITUTES 500 WORTH o.
ASSESSNENT WORK.

~
portance which has been tried in New
Mexico, was that of Speigelberg VS..
Clark, which occupied the time Of
the court during four days and half
last week, and was ended on Saturday
just before midnight, by verdict for
the plaintiffs. While important in it
self, it was of far greater importance
as the first of long series of cases Of
similar character, which are sure to
rise-in the future in this Territory,
and will grow in frequency and inter
est, as the development of our mines
progresses.
The charge Of Judge Prince stated
the law on every point in clear and
comprehensive manner, and constl-
tutes the first authoritative exposition
of the law on TIE subject in New Mex
lco, and such as will be of special in
teiest to every mining man in the
Territory.
We reproduce to-day those portions
Of the charge bearing on the two
questions of what acts constitute legal
possession of a nine, and what consti-
tutes the amount Of assessment work
required by law, including in the lat
ter statement Of The evidence ad-
missible in proving the value OF assess
ment work.
POSSESSION.
This is an action under what is CALI
ed the forcible entry and detainer law.
The plaintiffs a!lesc IN the complaint
that on the first day of January, 1882,
they were in possession Of mining
claim known as the BOURBON, in the
Cerrillos mining district, and that the
defendants on the said day by force,
fraud and stealth entered upon SAID
claim and detained and held possession
thereof against the plaintiffs.
Iii acts Of this kind the question Of
the title to the premises in question
cannot be considered. The case de,
pcnds entirely on possession not title.
1t can only be successfully brought by
the person or persons in possession Of
the premises al the time Of the alleged
entrance.
Tie first question then, Tor you to
consider is whether the plaintiffs were
in possession on the 1st day Of jan
uary, 1881.
The facts necessary to constitute
possession differ in accordance with
the different character of the property
possessed. Thus in the case of a min
ing claim, no acts are required as evi-
dence of possession other TRAN those
usually performed by the owners of
such claims. A miner is not expect
ed to reside on his claim nor build on
ii, nor cultivate it, nor enclose it.
The character Of the possession neces-
sary on mining claims will vary with
the nature of the mines and mode
adopted in working them and some-
times with the character Of the coun-
Try.
In case of this kind the possession
of the plaintiffs may be either by actual
occupancy by themselves or agent, at
the time Of the entry complained Of,
or il may be shown by location i'll ac-
cordance with law, and the subsequent
doing of all acts required BY law and
legal regulation for the holding Of q
mining claim. and the absence of any
acts O. omission showing an abandon
mention their part OF the clam IN
QUESTION.
If YOU believe that the plaintiffs
legally located the Bourbon claim in
1879, and during 1880 and 1881 per-
formed the labor or made the improve
u,ents required by the statutes and
lawful local regulations, and have not
in any way abandoned it, then they
were IN possession Of thereof for the
purpoees cf this action on the 1st day
Of January.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS.
It~was conceded during the trial
that the proper amount Of work was
done in 1880. As to the legality Of
the location in 1879, you are to de-
eide from the evidence before you on
tina. subject.
The greater part of the testimony in