The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1884-09-06
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK.

ed. and When Il Is not Subject to
Forfeiture
Great misunderstanding prevails re-
specting The law of annual labor and
of relocation oflodes, says the Austin
Revielle. Although Section 2,324 of
the United States Statues requires at
least 800 worth of work TO be done
on each lode within each year after
hat of the original discovery, and un-
til the lode is patented, or what is
equivalent, u Receiver s receipt is is
sued, the neglect to do that req uired
work f,r II one or more years, I'M
less there Is Intentional abandonment
OF the claim-does not actually forfeit
the title. To work such forfeiture
there must not only be such neglect,
but there must also be a legal reloca-
ton, before resuin pLlOn OF work. by
the owner, the neglect aud such valid
relocation combined operating 10 CON-
plete the forfeiture. the 300 worth
of work must be done enLlr-ly within
a calendar year, between January
LIST and January LIST, and ii S99 worth
OF the work be done in 1854 and 81 in
1855, the work for 1854 Is not co mplele,
nor hat of 1885, until Il full 500 OF
work shall be finished in 1885, "A frac-
ton OF the 500 OF work be done in
any one year not applying or cutting
any figure AS to work for any o her
year. Ii the owner neglects in whole
or part his annual labor of 1854, or
for several ears, he still has the first
claim 10 the lode AS long as another
has not relocated IL, for il 10 one has
taken adv ntage of the claims being
open 10 relocation the owner car re-
sumo work, lay ON January /, 1885,
or AT any time thereafter, III ad o
of such relocation, and from The non
ent of sdcb resumption OF wo.k in
good faith, past neglect Is forgiven.
and the negligent owners lille is
cured Of its defect. II, however, "A re-
locator should commence 10 work on
january, 1885, or AT any time there
al, Ter, before such resumption Of ork
by lie negligent claimant, AMI should
conform strictly To The requirements
OF the law Ia regard 10 relocator's tile
is perfected anu the previous owners
claim is forfeited. The question Is of
ten asked hat amount of work la ust
be done by the original owner after
neglect Of a previous years work, 10
entitle him IT, hold the claIm2 Must
he not only resume work, but con.
LInue IL uninterruptedly till the 500
of Is completed, or if he should
al.n r.Nftta.n Ranrk unl than onSanH1h
it, another party during >ucn u
pension. and before the 500 worth of
work is completed, enter on The lode
anu make valid relocation. Agreat
diversity Of opinion has been enter
tanned on this question, and the best
mining lawyers hold that the re-
SUMPTION In good faith is sufficient,
and that 1t entities the party so rcsuui-
ing 10 continue and complete his 500
worth OF work during that calendar
year up To and including Der
3lst. The last ease of THIS Kind noted
in the books WAS reported November,
1882, in ~ California $50, where a
mine owner neglected his annual
work for one year, then resumed work
the following year. but alter doing
about $l2 worth of work upon each
lode in January, suspended work.
Another party entered and attempted
to relocate in August. The supreme
Court of California decided such relo-
cation to be illegal, and that The orig
NAL owner could have completed his
work any time during that year.
1.-The work done Vas actual and valu-
able. The latter of the Statue upholds
the view, as to resumption of work,
taken by thu Court below, and for
FIXTURES and den, uncements are not
to be favored by language which does
not plainly and Enthusiastically provide
tor Them" The law may therefore
be considered as definitely settled in
thu diracfion Indicated