The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-04-18
Important Decision By the Com
missioner Of tbs General
Land 0McA
The Case Involves Most OF tho
Famous Jawbone Lode
Claim.
Helena once overruioi but the Case WIN
stnt Bs Fought nsforo the
Department.

great interest 60 mineral claimants. Ihe
case 10 that OF Wilism Stewart et al. vs.
IA omas NJ. Ress 81 al, but Is more gsnef-
ally known rs the Jawtono case. The jaw
bone lole. IN Jtf srson county. Was located
under she lsw as 10 existed prior to 1872,
when ell INFANTS were allowed up 60 . 900 feat
along a led, and r,Qai Cd o. do $40 worth
of assqssmcn, wo / per 100 feet each year.
TIE Law was changed in 1872 limiting
simauts 50 1910 feet Ia length OF lode,
and requiring SOB worth OF assessment
wo,k each year for the whole claim; but
providing that On claims located prior to
1872 assessment work should continue 20
the old rate Of $40 for each 100 feet OF
length OF claim. Uader this the locstors OF
the JAvbons were required TO still DO $50
OF assessment wo K year on ,, 200 feet. by
some oversg ht no work was doue for some
years and through some misunderstan ling
the claimant did bat 500 worth Of
work one year and this furnished
ground for a contest. The local land oalos
here held thai the 500 OF assessment work
emit tied tho claimants 20 1000 ieet OF their
original location o.. 900 feet. lhs com-
missioner ovefruies this decision aud holds
that she fniiure 20 max annual REPRESENTA-
ZION of SD rendered tbs whole claim sub
jsCt 60 forfeiture md relocation.
In his dec sion tie comm 50 oner OF the
general land office reviews the history OF
The Csc. Thomas 81 Rees made spplica-
uon F,o. 5. lSsl for Paten, e. the Jawoone
claim. ana the contestants hled their p o.
tst DC. 30 1892. alleging that the annual
expcn llture Tor labor anl improv meats
nad not been mada f5r 1870. 1891 and 1892.
as required by section pa o. tie revlssI
statute., which rsqui cd that ''on
81 . I
$40 worth o! labor shall be performed or
Improvements made each year for each 100
feet Ia length along the vein until a patsut
has been issued; but where such claims are
held 10 common the expenditure maF DO
made upon lnv one claim; ami upon fall
Lrs 10 comply With these ooad lions ths
claim or mine upon which the failure oc-
cur Cd shall be open 10 relocation Ia the
same N inner ~ II no location bal ever
been n ade; provided. the o iginEl locators
thels heirs assigns. or legal represa nta-
tives have not resumed work upon tie
cl im alter failure and befo such loca-
tion." be contestants also c aimed l,JOO
feet In Length along the Jawbone lode.
On Sept. L. 1898. the local land office de-
oided 90 follows; That prior to reloc alton,
ia December. 1891. L ses, the contestee re-
sumed wok on the claim, ana az that
time caused 500 worth Of annual develop
ment WORK 10 DO done. v be ems under Sec.
work dont: that the 800 50 expended en-
titled the claimant TO retain possession u
Loo feet aloag he lode. AMI preclu ied Re-
location OF the lo1e az abandoned ground
10 that extent; that the c claimant should
have elected and made matter Of record
prec soly what / ,0JJ feet along the lode he
intended TO clam and retain possession OF
II virtue % sue 500 worth OF annual de-
We opment work. ut that be had not done
90. "NsvorthelesI says tue commissioner
IN his decision, 'Jcu found that bis failu -e
90 to do b I'd not oecasiOneI an entire fer
fsiture, and you thereupoE hsld that the
point on the JaVbOne lOdO where size 500
worth Of Work was done ia 1871, and a suft-
Gent equal distance Ia length both direc-
tions along the lode line TO aggregate l.. OOO
feet was not subject 10 relocation as aban-
done4 ground. uut scat the cOntestse Is
entitled 70 retain possession OF, and
patent for. said l,OOJ feet along said lode.
"You further held" continues the Gem
missioner" that toe cOntestee Is entitled TO
the possession o., and patsut for any ad-
dit onHl ground in the JawbOne lode claim
Contiguous to the 1000 feet above de-
scrlbsd. aud not includs Z IA any subsequent
relocation, II U on q survey OF the 900
feet, 10 appears that there Is any such IN
claimed ground ir tue JHvbOns lode claim
contiguous 80 the ], 900 feet so awarded 70
contestee; that the contestee ehould lave
a survey made sggregating the ground 50
awarded him. and the entry should be held
for cancellation to the extent Of the residue
Of said claim.
Appellant specifies ten assignments Of
errO. two Of Whieh ] de- ID material, VIZ:
Error 20 have found tuat 800 worth
Of development Work vas done during the
year 1891; e ror 20 have fouul that the pc.
Torrance Of 500 worth OF development
work entitled contestee 60 1000 feet in
length along the lode. under the citcum-
stances in tais case.
1t npl ca . that the JaWbous was located
by John A. Pashly and nine others on Jan.
9, 1871. who under the provisions % the
fourth elton OF the ACT OF congress Of
July rs. 1896 claimed 200 feet for each locn-
tor. aud -UJ feet additional for discovery.
los the discoverer o. ths lode. and 10 .. 200
feet long and 100 feet Widr. 10 also appears
shat the coutsatee was by fnesne convey
ancee the owner OF she clam Ia full az date
ct Application. tbs foundation Of his title
being the original location above men
toned. Tbs alleA alton ia the protest shat
tue annual deye.opu work was not done
| FOR tie year 1880. IS immntefial. for the
reason that Work was resumed IN 1891, and
Irior 10 rslocatIol. Aeltaerls the a lsqa-
tiOn THAI tbs annual Improvement
Work for 1872 was not performed
rualof.ai, Tor tbs reason that
u sufficient work had been done IN 1891. 20
maiutaiu ios-ess.On under tie statute,
claimant would Lave been allowed until
Dec. 81, l532. 90 perfo M tho annual asseas-
meat Tor that year whereas contestHnts'
ie.ocstion vas made Oc'. 10, lsJA
This matter Il, the efor-, narrowed
down 90 two quoftloua, w.: Frat. did
claimant aud c0utesteo heron cause 800
worth 81 annual Hsaslsrneat work 10 b.
/ done Tor tie wear 1872 lie mnkos no claim
/ 90 havs done more tLan 300 w a.. rec
/ oud. II ctutestss expended sl0O for labor
/ o. Improvements oa the claim during the
7 5 car l-Jl what uus tie legal foot of such
4 CEfeud.turet
"Iuo nrst question IL very close one ID
Gloss INDEED that fair-minded psrsoAi
might cihs ~ 60 what the evidence do1
shuW, bot iueam rc4 as the burden Of PROC
% upon tie cJutcstauts ] am dispO ed o.
bod with sou On tDis point. that the con
testnuta have failed o. SHOW by prspou
esrauce u t4e ov.dencs that such amour
Wss not 40 eKgebdeI. aud pied on sal,
calm. ! pu. howsvef. unable, ma Hbov
indicated. 20 cgucu- ln Tou- holding as q
the legal effect Of such expenditures.
You parsntiy t.eat this claim a
though 10 consisted 81 eleven locations
aud conclude Ga a claimant ~ ylrtua o. IA
expenditure Of SlOJ Tor manual nssesmneu
worE 10 sutitleI % a d. ElcIeut number O.
saeh locations Co Aggregate l.Glu feet.
cannot co -atrue section -i2l o. warrant az
suoa rulcI us4on. even u aus claim csul
PRO oflY D. treated ~ eleven Locations. Per
tcuiA " when % ls femembofe that o.
enoTf Ms maze Co give notice. ~ rscoa
or uth-rWise. what one o. moe - t4
eleven locations claimant desired o. rstau
on accsunt Of such Il geuiiturc. bat Of
nv judgment ths clam should uaa b
treated a. Consisting 81 eleven locations.
'ihia clam was located aa On oltI ETY.
NaNM III