Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-01-29

namely, q O0BCIlpL1Ou "a Tue P10nAoS'
claimed, and by whom and when Il
Gated, in order to secure the discover
er or claimant against others seek1n
to locate the same ground; and l
thus constructive notice Of the CLAIM
ants possession. In addition to thi
purpose which it is to serve. it woul
seem that, by statute. such certihcat
is made one of the steps requisite T.
constitute a perfected mining loca
tion."
In 1 Lindley on Mines, Sec. 1872, the
author says: where the right i.
! possession is foundered upon az
alleged compliance with the law relag
ing to valid location, all the neces
sary steps, aside from the making an6
recording of the location certificate
must, when contested, be establishe..
| by proofs outside Of such certificate
Suppose the certificate of location.
had been filed within the time speci
| fed and it literally complied with al
the requirements provided in the
statute, but in reality the statement
therein made were false Such A
record would not make the necessary
title good. The subsequent locator
Notwithstanding the fact that a per-
feet record had been made would nor
be estopped from showing that it was
false. If no record at all is made IN
til after subsequent locator claims a
right to the ground, should not the
original locator be allowed to prove,
if he can. that he had in ali other r.
spects fully complied with all the re-
quirements of the law? If he fails to
properly record his certificate Of loca-
ton he may be deprived of the bene-
fits given by law, which would enable
him more easily to prove and make
out a prima facie case But it was
not the intention Of the lawmakers
, to deprive him Of otherwise proving
that he had performed the essentia
: acts necessary to give him the right
/ of possession of the ground.
: The statute in these respects anal
/ OgOus to the statute Of Nevada, which
requires a record to be made Of tn,
!, tabor annually performed on the min,
within a specified time after the labo
is performed. (Stat New, 1887, l3t
. Cult. Com. H. Sec. 21D. In Boo
V. Justice M. Co.. So Feb, LOG, lis
it was claimed that cetain location
|. of mining claims were invalid becaus
e the assessment work was pot recorde
l. as required by this statute. Thi
i court, after quoting the statute, said
z THE object of the act was evidently t
t fix some dennate way in which pro-
o as to the performance of the work {
# expenses incurred in the making
IS improvements might be, in man
IS cases, more accessible. In all mimi
q communities there is liable to be SON
1t difficulty in finding the men who a
IT tually performed the labor or MAD
'e the improvements. and procuring the
to testimony, in order to establish II
H. facts necessary to show a compliant
e. with the mining laws in this respee
IS The act was passed, as expressed
in the title, for the better perservatit
as Of titles to mining claims. Locate
q of mining claims would dOubtle
lie often save much time and trouble
- well as hardship, inconvenience al
it expense, by complying with the pl
be visions of this act: but the act do
n not prevent. and was not intended
n prohibit. the owner Of mining clai
e from making the necessary proof
NJ any other manner. nor does it prOhil
&c the contesting party from contradi
e. ing the facts stated in the affaday
tie 1t simply makes the record priI
he facie evidence of the facts there
aS. stated
py There was no provision in II
.ly statute-and there is no provision
Ter the section of the statute under c
lr sderatiOn-"that a failure to COM
en- with it's terms will work a forfeitur
he And in my opinion the statute req,
tn. ing the certificate of location to