Bisbee daily review., 1902-09-19
MINING LAW
 IS DECLARED
THE LATEYT STATE AND FEDERAL DECISIONS PREPARED Ex- PRESSlY FOR THE PA
 CiFiC COAST MINER


 working at the bottom of a shaft, which is operated by the company to hoist ore from the various levels of the mine or lesses of the levels. and an employee of a lessee allowing ore to fall and injure the former. are not fellow servants Union Gold Min. Go. vs. Crawford, 6s Pac. Rep. (Colo) 600. Where a level in mine is in the same negligent condition when leased by the owner as at the time of subse- Quent injury of an employe of the owner, in a shaft operated by him, re- sulting from the such condition, the owner is responsible therefor. Union Gold Min. Go. vs. Crawford, 69 Pac. Rep. (Colo.) 600.
 The construction, in an upper level of a mine, of an ore tramway on such a grade that cars started thereon, or starting by gravity will run into the shaft by their own momentum, without providing sufficient barriers to prevent their falling down the shaft, is negli- gence Union Gold Min. Go. vs. Craw- ford, 69 Pac. Rep. (Colo) 600.
 
 an ore tramway runzIng to a shaft, constructed so that car would run into the shaft, which was operated by the owner for the benefit of the ,es- sees; and an employe of the lessee, without beinw guilty of negli- gence, allowed a car to run Into the shaft and injure an employe of the owner. Held, that the negligent con nf ho frar " riers was the proximate cause of the injury. Union Gold Min. Co. vs. Craw- ford. 69 Pac Rep. (Colo.) 600.
 A lode or vein is body of mineral or mineral body of rock within defined boundaries in the general mass of a mountain. Buffalo Zinc and Copper Co. vs Crump, ct al, 69 s. w. Rep. (Ark.) 572.
 Where a purchaser of mining claims has held them adversely for the period of limitation, it will be presumed, as against an adverse claimant. that the claims were regularly located. BuffalQ Zinc and Copper Go. ys. Crump ct al, 69 s. W. Rep. (ArkD 572-
  mining claims were not recorded with in thirty days, they are sufficient, if recorded before any adverse rights are acquired. Buffalo Zinc and Copper Go. ys. Crump ct al, 69 s. W. Rep (Ark.J 572.
 The burden of proving forfeiture of a mining claim by the failure of the former owner to perform the annual labor required by law rests upon him who sets it up. Buffalo Zinc and Cop per Co. vs. Crump ct al, 69 s. W. Rep. (Ark.) SIP.
 Where locators of mining claims never undertook to develop and main tain them, and other claimants took possession and held and developed them for a longer time than the period of limitation, the title of the last clai- mants was good as against any one except the government. Buffalo Zinc and Copper Co.,, vs. Crump ct al, 6S s. w. Rep. (Ark) 572. Il
 Where mining claim is forfeited owing to the corporation owning it failing to do the required representa- tion. a purchase of the claim by di' rector and trustee of the corporation from a re-locator, in good faith, does not innure to the benefit of the corpo- ration. McDermott Min Go. vs. Nc Dermott ct al. 69 Pac. Rep (Mont-, 715.
 Under Rev. St U, S., Sec. 2324. re uuirity a certain amount of labor to be done each year on a mining claim under penalty of forfeiture, claimant who has failed to perform the work for some year or years. but resumes work in good faith, is entitled to the property, as against re-locator after resumption. Buffalo Zinc and Copper Co. ys. Crump ct al., 69 W. Rep tArk.) 57z.
 The owner of mining locations stopped work thereon temporarily, ex