The Alaska prospector., 1903-12-03
Icontinued From Third ,sye ,

the plaintiff in Alaska in leop and the record oi l.s examination and approval by the board oi Iirertors; see Plaintiffs Exhibit's 10. D. tsi vol '. bepositions: also pages si5s52 supra This report !s a full s'aiement of l,xs wors on the c"inp1ny's mines, snd containsthe names ahn , ain"unts r.id and tle eharscer pf The Nak nohe' it shows fhai 10 cla werc inta- ted by him for The rompan nv during tbat season second. the admission on the pIair siff's rec ,ri an . a;annary ;n,y s i"s ,hat plaintiff only claimed " in the Bonanza group and ihe adrlission thst the claims were located by that conn. pasng; s..' tne lis pendens made and signed by hishuHs : nricers to like effect. and recorded tcbrhary i:Il in the Tecorder's office at Val. Ie<; see ':ilainiif's Exhibit No. R." r. e. vol. 5s he.'si'i,as sa, h "pefendan;s' Exhibi, 5s," P -n,; vol X Propositions; and D. ss9. vol. 2. Depo- sitions. Third. that sworn statement of inc piaintin made by its officers under the rcupire- mems of ihe laws of Alaska signed scE row. leged and sworn io on Jaunary IS IeI and at. 'esied by < maj jprity of itS board of d're-tor> and hi.i in the clerks office at Juneau on Mmrrh H. l"i. This report purports to contain ! q full statement of it's assets: itS mines are in snilo;cd particularly: but none of the Bon. ,inr. anza group n"r any insresi therein, is men | ;, Dispositions. the failure to mention this property. where il was iis duty to do so in mar. s@hsiihg @ its assets under the law. is strong evi- ,icnce that Plaintiff did not then claim 10 own the B1nsnza group any interest therein Bergsre v- United States les T. S es .Il l. Ed N; The failure of the plaintiff to do asses.- mem w"rs rpon The Bonanza mines in l9ll is another admission in the same line The nu- | merous letters written in November and Dc. cember. i91i. year and A half after perine ! and Willard had full knowledse nf inc face cnnc.Tning The loca'ion of the Bnnauzn grnur, ! m "hien they sought in act as agen's for the sale of ihe mines io their concealed princi pal anu in which they fully admit the ownership of defendants. can not fail fo throw doubt and uncer'aintyuPon the later testimony as vii nesse~ in 'he rHse. and in thr words of Iudo. story. Lead Us 10 the conclusion that there may have been some mistakesand misappr.- hsn-ion' [" say the least. as io he ;,urport and lf s.a ssg.tNt {. ..s which they testify"
 The evidence in the case shows clearly ,ha, ieieldani Fitch Was employed head packer for plaintiffs pay under McCl Han thai Kain was employed as foreman ofihe d,.vel ,prncnt work on the Nicolsi mine and Gate> as q labor CT lheFen1 They were so employed when the ihines m snit were located. and paid therefor; ,heir accounts were stated in McC lellan', re. Ps,Tt and th-ir payment approved by the plain III III oy n formal act of is board of directors iheTe IS no tesiimony in the ease to show that either Fitch. kain ur Gates had any other re- ln.ipn toward the plaintiff than mere employ ees io perform a specified kind of labor which lhey did Ie-iofm satisfactorily, so far as the re ord gue>. They were not agents for the To- eaton of mines for the plaintiff, and had no agieen .Ii or duty in that regard. Under the rule ihs Y were n.t barred from participation n th- locations i the Bonanza group made bv Warner and smith. Warner and smith were neither agents nor em pl pyees of the plaintiff; they Were neither c employed, supported trans. ported nor pa!d by u. nor by anyone for it They werr Independent prospeetors, in the Cop
 
 ineAt previous to that made between the piain- tin Gnd Mcclellan; -ir locations were not made for 're plaintiff but were made for the mem b-I, II Ihe Mcclellan prospecting parry lhe rNliei. ( fail, tr sati-fy me that the de f-ndGnis, CT "ith Of thea, have committed omitted ur r sriait ed any act in violation of A duty to ih" i!aintia es its agents pr employees NOT hrNe iitey, ,f either II them, ee..szuilty .i all! iirli I-i tue transaction of bushes with 1T, Or failed ts r-crgnize and observe fairly the rules ui bli i;.e Integrity and honest dealing N4in II. The iH.ntir ne- failed tO esft blisli 4-> Vss by | air prep aige nf he te~iiain- ~; IL rYi.-.ir- !- n.t that full. satisfactory toINl..c!Hg and unanO O!zGous kind which will lusilI! cuu.f @i equity in establishing a trrst IpYA real estate wien the Irimg iacie title aRd pys>e.,lJI i> in another.
 IT 4s GIi.e s>LTy tD attempt To review every it1lnl made .I tne Gsei The Court will net do sp. II l. my-j jId -Ia IL that the plaintiff fail- To estabil>h s'aeH GA a-elcF enables it io en- ir's a ifIsi ip5u tne r.sl pr1psrty in contTp- NrrsE, an1 all otner GuesiiOn, are, therrfOs-, :ninIatelial. Lei findings Of fact. conclusions of law aBd decree b. entered in line with these conclusions
 Dated Al Valdez. Alaska, November 2s. l913.
 JAMES WICKERSHAM
 District Judge.