The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1903-11-05


ton of the Joanna" Mrs. Watsons
testimony as to the location of the
Joanna was that on the evening of
April 18th after the location Of the Gold
Hilln and Doubtful. when he told the
plaintiff that he had located her i'm those
claims. Mrs Watson. who was present,
asked that he locate "A mine for her: so
the next day-iinding the Joanna land
with Bakers consenD-he located that
ledge for his wife. that he told her the
same evening in the presence of Mrs.
Bonner that he had located a claim In
his wifes name as sole locator. calling
IL the Joanna. The next day when
they visited the claims. Watson says
he pointed out 10 Mrs. Bonner the
Doubtful aud Cold Hin, telling her
she was located in those. and then in
her presence and hearing he pointed up
the hill to the Joanna and told Mrs
Watson that that was her claim All
OF this was also testified 10 by Mrs. Wat
son. who Swore that she and Mrs. Bon
aer frequently talked Of the Joanna" as
Airs. Natsons mine. and that she at
Mrs. Bonner's suggestion wrote letters
TO Marcus Daley and w. a. Clark. with
reference To the claims. and telling them
also on the plaintiffs suggestion, that
she, Mrs. Watson. was the sole owner
thereof. According 10 the testimony Of
MI. anu AliNs W aAstu ana isdhHI lAtIt
was an agreement entered into between
the plaintiff and Watson and Baker on
April 2lst. 1899. viz. an agreement that
the two men would do the necessary
location work on the claims in which
the plaintiff had been located and that
she should supply the grub for them
while doing that work, and the powder,
fuse. caps. and other needed supplies.
They all three swear that il was in pur-
that the supplies were obtained at the
stores and the provisions and cooking
utensils furnished from the restaurant.
Watson testified that he used none of the
things procured under this alleged agree
ment Of April 2lst. when doing the work
on the Joanna" The books of Mr.. Can
non showed an account against Watson
and 1t was admitted at the
trial by plaintiffs counsel that the store
books would show an account with Wat
son beginning about the time he began
To do work ON the Joanna" Mr. and
Mrs. Watson swore that about the nth
Of July. 1899. after Watson had received
money from the mill run on Joanna"
ore Watson asked Mrs Bonner for his
bill at the restaurant and that he then
paid her $50 in full for his board from
the time he went to Cherry about the lat
ter part of March up to April 10Th. This
MIS- btiiiti utfltl anu Sdil NdAsDn fFu
never paid for his board during that
period. There were numerous other con-
Iradictions in minor details between the
testimony of the plaintiff and that of the
defendants.
Joe Watson. a brother of the defendant.
VIM. A. Watson. swore that while he had
a lease on the Joanna, which was dur
ing the summer and fan of 1899. he had
heard the plaintiff speak of the Joanna"
as Mrs. Watson's mine and had also
heard her say. in the restaurant, that il
the joanna turned out to be valuable
II would give value TO the claims she was
located in
With reference to the testimony of the
defendant Baker. II is to be said that he
was contradicted and impeached by the
evidence of p II. Cannon. The latter
testified that Baker had told him that
during the time the Joanna" was To-
Gated Mrs. Bonner was putting up the
grub stake" and that both he and Baker
and she were entitled to an interest in
the claim. Baker on his cross examina-
ton had denied making such a statement
TO Cannon. | do not regard the letter
from Murphy as having much might to
impeach Baker, even if admissible for
that purpose, as there is no result show
ing as to what the latter wrote to
Murphy. Murphy's letter might be eX-
planned on several different suppositions
Before attempting to resolve the main
questions at issue in the case it is de-
srable briefly to consider the character
of the agreement set up in the complaint
and of the rights asserted Hereunder, and
the kind of evidence and the degree OF
proof by which the alleged rights of the
plaintiff must be established. The alleged
agreement was nothing more or less than
a grub contract. 1t did not
create or attempt to create what is tech
nically known as mining partnership"
II is a kind of contract common In min
ing countries and courts have frequently
laid down the principles applicable to
such. Judge Lindley in the second edi-
ton of his work on mines writes of it as
follows.
Section s5s. Grub stake" and pros
pecting contracts.
The early miner, in the construction
Of his vocabulary, did not always dis
play a regard for euphony or the pro-
prieties Of language. He coined his terms
but avoided indirection
and the suggestion of latent ambiguity.
When he was called upon to characterize
the relationship existing between those
who furnished him with money and sup
plies to enable him to seek and discover
mines, agreeing in return that those sup
plying him should share in his successes,
he called the transaction "grub-staking.
Hence the term grub stake" contract.
This class of contracts is common in
the mining regions of the West They
are not required to be in writing. as they
are not within the statute of frauds.
They have sometimes been called pros
pecting partnerships" and are said to
partake Of the character OF qualified
Yet, unless the agree
ment goes beyond the mere furnishing of
supplies in consideration of participa-
ton In the discoveries. the word partner
ship" is improperly used, and is mislead-
ing. 1t is simply a common venture.
wherein one, called the outfitter supplies
the grub, and the other. called the
performs the labor. and all
discoveries inure to the benefit of the
parties in the proportion fixed by the
agreement
THE prospector has the right to In
sst on the outiitter performing his part
Of the agreement as IA condition prece-
dent to participation in such discoveries.
Should he fail To do so. the prospector
may discover and locate for his own adj
free from any obligation to the
Dutftter
ION the other hand, where the out
filter fulflls his part of the agreement.
when the prospectOr finds and locates a
mine the relationship of tenancy in COM
mon as to such mine Immediately arises.
with its attendant rights and obligations.
Should the prospector during the life
Of the contract locate In his own name to
The exclusion of the one supplying the
capital, the title thus aecruing to him
would be held In trust for his associate
IN the joint venture to the extent of his
not necessarily on the theory
IF partnership, but for the reason that
mis- advances contributed to the acquisi- |
lion of the property.
1T is essential to a right in property
Inder a grub-stake contract that such