Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1896-07-03
call it the Hurt mine because he

call it the Hurt mine because he
is in it,
"No attempt was made to show
that there was any mistake made
in writing the location notice and
we must take it as we find it, and
must presume that the intention
was, as stated in the notice, to re-
fer to the Hurt mines as perman-
ent monuments by which to iden-
tify and from which to determine
the location of the Maybe.
"Now if we make a diagram OF
the Hurt mines and place them in
any position that will correspond
with the testimony, then draw a
line from the northeast to the
southwest of the Hurt mines, we
shall see at once that half q dozen
mines may be located and each one
in a southwesterly direction from
the Hurt mines and all north of
North Willow creek.
at is not at all surprising that
Mr.. Hastings, the surveyor, at
first said he could not find the
mine from the location notice, and
then, partially taking it back,
says that he did not try to.
"There was no discovery shaft or
cut ON the ground when Hastings
went there to survey the claim.
Nothing to indicate that any work
bad ever been done there. The
discovery stake might have been
moved many times and no one I'M
acquainted with the location could
have discovered from the location
notice that it had been 80 moved.
1--WE think it is the duty of the
court to give mining notices and
records liberal construction to
the end of upholding a location
made in good faith. But where
the description and reference to a
natural object or permanent monu-
ment is of such a character that q
mining engineer could not find the
claim from the location notice, as
is evident in this case, and where
it is such that the claim may be
located almost anywhere to suit
the ground or to cover ore that
may have been since discovered,
it is clearly such a notice as can
not furnish foundation for a valid
location.
at appears from Mr.. Hastings
testimony that he placed the dis
covery at the point indicated in
his testimony, not from any di.
rectiOns in the location notice, nor
on account of any indications on
the ground that any work had
been done there, but from state.
ments made by plaintiffs, and
hence all his measurements beinp
made from an uncertain point were
themselves uncertain and the
court is unable to say whether
this was the original location
or not.
ave may presume that plaintiff
Brown was perfectly honest in
pointing out the place of discov.
cry and the corners of the claim
as the evidence shows he did SC
point out the corners, to the sur
veyOr, but where there is such un.
certainty in the location notice
we have no certainty of it at all.
1t is evident that the reference
to some natural object or perman.
ent monument to identify the
claim must be such as to furnish a
reasonable certainty that the locus
of the claim has not been, and
could not well be changed.
"The naming of contiguous
claims is requirement of GU,
statute, and was complied with
but the reference to a permanent
monument must be such as will
enable a skilled engineer at least
to identify the claim without
reference to contiguous claims, the
location of which is uncertain.
Permanent monuments may
exist before the location or may
be erected for the purpose of tie
ing the claim to them, but tn,
courses and distances from then
to discovery stake or corner stake.
or some other object ON the grount
must be stated with reasonable &C
curacy.
"The Judgment of the court be
low is affirmed"