Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1899-01-21
The Case Of Mccarthy Et Al VS.. The Holy
Terror Mining Co.

peculiar In many respects, and in some
points contrary to the federal mining
law, as understood by the miners gener-
ally. Having read the opinion of the
Judges Of the supreme court of the state
in this case, We are not prepared to pen
any severe structures upon it, as we are
aware that circumstances alter cases."
and we can readily imagine circum-
stances under which such a decision
would be Just and fair and good law. 1t
would be just in case any deception has
been used, any fraud or misrepresen nta-
tion practiced by one co-tenant on an
absent co tenant. 1t would be good law
providing they were partners. and one
partner was furnishing supplies while
the other was engaged in prospecting, in
which case there is generally an agree
ment or written contract setting forth
what proportion each man is to receive
and own in any mines which may be
discovered in any way by said prospec-
tor, while said first party is still furnish
ing supplies, and until the time and
terms OF said partnership have expired,
or until the partnership is Dissolved by
mutual consent But this case from all
reports does not come under either of
these heads, but is based as we under
stand it on the plain statement "that
one co.tenant cannot relocate former
co tenant out" Now, if the above state
ment just as it reads forms the basis Of
the decision land such is the case as it
comes to us) we are prepared 10 render
our opinion that such an Interpretation
of the law and such a decision will not
stand the critical test which good min
ing lawyer ould put it TO, and will not
stand as law in the arbitrament Of our
highest court We are not engaged in
the practice Of the law and have never
made an application to be admitted to
the bar, but we have been engaged in
mining for 38 years and have found that
it behooved us as a miner and pros
pector to read carefully the mining laws
both state and national, and to keep
posted on the changes Of the law, the
decisions ofjudges, and the ruling Of the
courts. We are prepared to state that
in all our reading we have never ran
across any passage of law that would
sustain Judge in decision like that
We are aware there are many foolish
and frivilouS lawson our statutes, both
civil and criminal, but it is not so with
our mining laws. We do not mean to
say that our mining law might not be
changed in some respects to their better
ment, but we believe they are intended
to be just and rs far as We are able to
discern they are based on reason and
hard headed common sense.
Now let us dvest ourselves for mo-
ment of all prejudice and bring our
reason to bear upon this proposition.
NO co-tenant can relocate former
co-tenant out" Let us see how this
kind of law will work. You are pros
pector and you come to me and say,
Put up for me and you shall have half
of anything | strike" We sayall right
make out your bill for grub and tools
and we will pay for it. We will presume
that this is all that is said and that there
is no written agreement, which is often
the case. Let us presume that in course
of few months you send me word that
you have struck vein which you be-
lieve will pay to develope, have located
it and put both Of our names on the
notice and is so recorded. We notify you
in return to GO ahead, sink down and
when you need supplies let me know
and we will provide. Say that this goes
on until the expiration Of the year, we
are still cotenants in that claim
Suppose the new year is ushered in
and you come to me and say my sup
plies are exhausted. WELL" we reply,
"the vein don't seem to improve, we don't
think much Of that ground, and we shall
not spend any more money on it, and
can not let you have any more supplies"
"All right" you say, II have no claim
on you. but must do the best can" and
you walk away. In a few days you
make a similar arrangement with an
other party and 60 out in the hills again
pursuing your avoca.ion as prospector
with a new partner. We will presume
that you do not go back to work on the
claim owned by you and me, but you 90
away seeking for something new. You
return at the expiration say Of two
years and find the old claim untouched.
no work having been done on it since
your last, and two years have passed
away. This is clear case of abandon
ment, The ground has reverted back
to the government and has become pub
lie domain. AS such it is open to relo.
cation (our law says by "any qualified
person" You are a qualified person,
and you still have confidence in the
ground, you proceed to relocate it full
aud complete, with new stakes and a
new notice, npon which you write your
own, and perhaps other names, but my
name you do not put on the notice, we
am relocated out. We have been relo-
Gated out many times under like cir
cumstances. We never made the first
complaint, because we realized that it
was just and fair, and further more that it
was the law. Neither you or we had any
claim upon that ground after it had be-
come abandoned by reason of it not
having the annual labor performed
within the time prescribed by law. You
are free, if not when will you ever be.
e. -. - 4. 4