The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-19

When Engineer of Coal Mine Is Fellow
Servant of Miners.-Under the common
law rule as to fellow servants an en-
gneer of a mine, whose duty it is to low
err the men TO work in the mine, lift
them out and take out the ore. is a fell
low servant of the miners In an action
for damages for personal injuries alleged
to have been caused by an incompetent
engineer employed by a mining company,
evidence to show such incompetency,
seven years before the accident, taken in
connection with proof of a series of acts
of negligence tending to snow his incom>
potency, extending over a long period of
time, is admissible to show that the COM
pany knew, or should have known, of
the incompetency of such engineer. Evil
dence that the general reputation of such
engineer was that of a careless engineer
il admissible as tending to show knowl-
edge on the part of the company.-Stoll
VS.. DAILY Mining Company (57 Pacific Re-
porter, 295); supreme court of Utah
Mne-Owner's Liability for Injuries to
Empioye. -Where a fire is raging in the
middle of a mine while an employe is be-
low the fire it is the duty of the mine
owner to telegraph to a distant city and
hire a special train to obtain appliances
with which to extinguish the fire, if such
Is the only means of saving the employees
life. as the rule of diligence, when life is
at stake, requires the doing of everything
that gives reasonable promise of its pres
ervation, regardless of difficulties or eX-
pense. An employers failure to use dill
gence in rescuing an employe in the mine
under such circumstances Is not excused
by his acting pursuant to the unanimous
opinion of other operatives. He is also
liable for death caused by the failure of
his superintendent to do what due dill
gence required of him, because he was
acting under excitement. In an action for
damages for putting plaintiffs minor son
n q dangerous Mace without
consent, whereby he was injured, the
question of contributory negligence and
negligence is imma terial.-Bessemer Land
& Improvement Company VS.. Campbell (25
Southern Reporter 1887; supreme court of
Alabama.
Acquisition Of Lode Claim-The laws Of
the United States Revised Statutes. sec
lions 2.319. 2.320, 2,32D, require that before
the locator of a mining claim on public
lands shall be entitled to same he shall
have discovered on Incorporated land
mineral bearing lode, and shall have
distinctly marked the boundaries of his
claim. so that they may be readily traced ;
but the finding of the lode need not pre-
cede the stalking of the claim. and hence
where a claim is located, and the locator
afterward discovers a lode in the same,
before the claim has been appropriated by
another, he has valid claim to same.
That part of the land on which a miner
located a claim was patented to another
without his objection does not prevent him
from including the part unappropriated
in another claim located on adjoining
land and obtaining a valid patent to the
claim thus established. Under the con-
stitution of Utah (article s, section 3D.
quiring all actions to be tried in the
county where they arose. an action to try
title to a mining claim located on land in
cluded in another claim on which the de-
PENDANT entered, arose in the county
where the land was situated and the entry
made, and not in that where the land
office IN which such claim was filed was
Saskatchewan vs.. Perego 1913 Federal
Reporter. 60S); United States circuit court
of appeals.