The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-09-08
JAWB0NE LODE CLAIM.
Decision Of the Local Land Office In
volving Valuable Property in
Jefferson County.
What Abandonment OF a Claim
One of the Questions
Involved.
Neither Side Gets All 1t Asks and the
Case Will Probably Go to tho
Commissioner

The officials Of the local land Office have
rendered a decision In q case involving the
valuable Jawboue lode. in jefferson county.
he title of the case WAS VIM. " o.
al Va. Thos. M. Rses. DIR. O. W. :. Ihomp-
son, who has . bond on Kscs' interest in
the claim, was allowed to enter the case as
interyenor. o. w. Mcdonnell appeared
for the plaintiffs and Jno. W.. Eddy for the
defendants. Feb. 8, 1889. Rees filed his ap-
plieation for tho Jawbons lode and mlllsise.
April 4. 1883. oven illoRlv filed an adverse
olaim against tho millsite. On Disc. ~.
1892, Rees made nm entry for tho Jswbone
lode excluding the nillsits. Twenty days
later VIM. Stewart filed a protest against
tho issuance of q patent to Rees. alleging
that the annual expenditure required by law
upon the lode had not been done during
1890, 1891 and 1892. and that Stewart OF al
we're tho owners by location and possession
of 1000 feet In length Of the Javbone lods.
The commissioner Of the general land Of
fee directed the local land officers to have
q hearing at which evidence WAS TO
be submitted ITO determine whether
the required annual assessment work
was performed by Rees or by anyone for
him so as TO maintain possession of the
Jawbone lode according to law for the year
In which entry was made, or 80 that the
claim was not subject TO relocation az
abandoned property by the protestants
prior to the date OF entry" AT the hear
ing tho evidence showed the Jawbone lode
is 2, 200 feet in length by 100 in width. The
adverse claim of Stewart was based on the
location Of the Weaver lode. made Oct. 10.
1892. The question involved was, was the
Jswbone lode open to relocation Oct. III.
1892, BY reason of defendants failure to
perform tho labor or make the improve
ments required annually by thu statutes?
In the decision the local officers say: Un-
der the circumstance of shis case. defend
snts action or non-aetion in 1880 10 imma-
terial, for the reason that Q compliance by
him with the requirements Of the statute in
1891 or 1892 prior TO Oct. 10 of the latter
year would cure his former default and
avoid forfeiture Of his claim so far as the
rights of plaintiffs are concerned. The
mere failure TO do tho annual labor re-
quired. does not Of itself work q forfeiture.
The statute provides only that tho ground
will be open to location. To work a for
feiture REQUIRES the inserVenslon OF an ao-
verse right. Two parties are required. one
to take advantage Of the original claimants
default. by relocating the ground. A fail
ure to do the annual labor for a series of
years will not forfeit the claim. If before il
has been relocated the ono in default cures
his default by resumiDg work aud prose.
cutting II with Reasonable diligence until
Their has been dons an amount equivalent
to that required FOX the previous year
alone.
Tho question depends upon the work
dons in 1891. for il appears no work was
done whatever in 1892. Plaintiffs contend
the work done in 1891 did not exceed $40 in
value, while defendant maintains 1t fully
equsled 800 in value.
It appears shat defendant Rees is a nom
resident Of this state. In 1891 his agent,
now counsel, John W. Eddy. hired one
stellinR TO perform 800 worth of work on
The Jawbone lode. SIZZLING, In company
with one Back. went from Helena to tho
mine In December, exact date unknown,
did certain work there. returned to Hell
ena and received from Eddy q draft upon
Rsss, for whieh they received 800. re-
presenting to Eddy shat they had lone
work upoa the claim to that amount.
After going over all the evidence. the
summing up being In favor of the defend
ant, TO the effect that no had done 300
worth of work o. the lode, the decision
continues:
This lode was located prior to the passage
OF the act of May 10, 1872. Said act pro-
vAAOo bAuUO ia 0bt - oootON PAtV1 ~
that time. 1910 worth of labor shall be per-
formed OF improvements made - each
year thereafter, for each 100 feet In leneth
along the vein - but whom suoh olaims
are held In common. suoh expenditure may
be made upon any one claim" failure Ia
this the mine shall be open to relocation
In the same manner as if no location Of the
same had ever been made"
1t is clear then that since this Javbone
lode was located prior to said act and Ia
1900 feet long, defendant in order TO save
it from relocation should have done $40
thei col, or S220 worth of work in the year
1901. He did but 800 worth of work and
10 remains to be- considered the effect
thereof upon his claim.
The Jawbone lode consists of eleven
claims, each 200 feet in length. under one
location. They are now held by defendant
alone. The statute requires $40 worth OF
work shall be done each year on said claims
for each 100 feet i'll length along the vein,
but that such expenditure may be made on
one of these claims. II further provides
the claim on which 4 failure to perform
this work occurs shall be open to reloca-
tion.
Now defendant at one point ON the con-
solidated claims constituting the Jawbone
lode did 800 worth of work in 1891. He
thus satisfied the requirements of the stat
ute to the extent of i've of these claims, or
1,uuU leet along VIC VEIN. 30 mucl OF the
Jnwbone lode was saved from exposure TO
forfeiture in 1891. leaving six claims, or
!, 200 feet thereof open to relocation in that
year.
1t appears the defendant did not intend
to leave any of these claims open to for
feiture. His agent. in igno ance of the re-
quirementS of the statute, had but 500
worth of work done, believing it all that
was required. This mistake and conse-
quent failu' cannot enute to the ben ct of
7e!ocators so far as to deprive defendant OF
the benefit of the work ne did do. He ia
clearly entitled to 1000 feet in length OF
the Jawbone lode by virtue of the 300
worth OF work done in 1891, though pia,n-
tits have rslocat d..
Now it being by mistake that defendant
fGlled to co the full amount of wo X neces-
sary 20 save the emit re claim from forfeiture.
he has not designated or elected my por-
tion thereof as that to which the work that
he old 50 shall Apply. The question is,
what l,UW feet of the lCde WAS saved from
forfeiture by the work defendant did?
MIR. Morrison in mis- Mining Rights ssys
that In such n case the owner in his D oof
OF tannuaD lRhor, should state the wo k
done for the purpose of holding only 30
many feet, designating where they lie upon
the lode"
This would be wise precaution, but n
failure so to do is not followed by forfeit
ure. Defendant having failed to elect the
portion of the lodo to which the work done
snail apply. md q relocation upon the lode
having been made, is now deba red from
election. but yet entitled to LOCO feet of ths
lode. In such a case ii may be d declared to
be a rulo he shall BIS given thu point where
tho work was done and such an eaue! num-
her nj fat ar, aanh mia. tb.. -,