The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-09-18

with ,thse Qualifical iOnA,hat the def1n-
itiOn of a lode must always have
special reference to the formation
and peculiar characteristics Of the par
ticular district in which the lode or
vein is found. 1t was never lnteded
that in such case the court should
weigh scales to determine the value
CT the mineral found between prior
and subsequent locator of a mining
claim on he same lode.
The same court in ShOshOne Min. !,
Co. v. Rutter, 81 Fed. sol, sos, again
said: THE purpose of the statute in
requiring that location of a mining
claim shall be made until the discOv
cry of vein or lode within the limits
of the claim located was to prevent
frauds upon the government by per-
sons attempting to acquire patents to
land net mineral in its character. But
as was said in Bonner v. Meikle u.
CO 80 Fed 697: 1T was never intend
ed that the court should weigh scales
to determine the value of mineral
found, as between prior and subse-
quent locator of mining claim on the
same lode The location of the Kirby
was made in 1886. The discovery OF
mineral then made was sufficient to
induce the locators and their grantees
to perform the amount Of annual la
Dor thereon as required by the mining
laws-to eXpend their time and money
in prosecuting ,Ae work thereon-in
the belief and expectation OF finuing
Gre Of profitable value therein
The following authorities are to
the same effect: Book V. Justice Min
ing Co. &C. CO So Fed. 100; McShane
V. kenkle, is mont. EOS. "A Pac. 979:
333 L. R. A. ISL, Sc Am s., Rep. SO:
Muldrick V. Brown (Or.) 81 Pac. 1928:
, IrGn S. NJ. CO. V. Cness man, 116 [. S
SO. Sup. CT 49,. 50 L. Ed. H.:
Harrington V. Chambers (Utah) ! Pac'
375; Amhergris Min. Co, V. Day
daho}. So Paac. 100: Lindiey on
Mines q ed section 33b.
The evidence n his case shows
that. at or near ~ location mOnu
'Gent Of the Bc.,r HTension claim
mere vas an .-.., ping. and We
hlnn it NAV I'D from the
violence that =. e----cc ping carried
: values. We think it may be infer
red from the evidence thar
! the plaintins intended 20 base
. their calm Of a disvoery up
on this outorCpping when tnov
erected the monument and posted
o thei. notice Of location OF the Ramsey
+ !-z,. ension claim upon or near it. II
: Is 1Cr necessary 10 determine whetne.
this state OF facts alone would he
: sufficient TO Justify the trial courl
n denying the motion for non sui
n HHt taken in connection with othc,
4 :a-1S which a1e SHOWN, or which may
q +, inferred from the evidence. ",
i think tAc showing was sua;cient ,C
o require that ;ne moU0n be denied
O The contention OF counsel for appel
liant has not been questioned that tnC
-. location monument OF the Idols
d Eye" claim and the location
n monument CT the Ramsey Exten
=. sicn claim, were one and III,
= same. S Iact may be inferred from
= the evidence and fer the purpose.
- OF ,--e motion, ii should be considered
- as an established tact.
Our statute Comp. Laws. See POS
% requires that the notice Of location h,
~ posted lat the point Of discovery.
- Therefore when a locator erectS a lO
-, cation monument and puts his Location
. notice thereon he. III effect. declare
=, that at that point he has made a dis
= cCVery. This is SO in order that a.
=, other prOspectOr going upon the sam
- ground many not only see that SOM
! one else claims to have initiated
H. location, but upon what discovery
It. or alleged discovery, if any. sue
IN claim is based.
II, Il IN,
ot of our statute this court had occasio
or to refer to the importance of havin
lie the location notice posted at an Al
no propriate point upon or near tn
o. ledge.
its In the case of Phillpotts V. Blasde
he New IS the court said: In orde
he to hold ledge. it is not necessary III;
-e, the notice should be placed on tt
ar ore Or any part CT the vein or lode.
es- is sufficient. as the jury was instru
he ed. if the notice is placed in sue
'pt reasonable proximity and relation
IN the ledge, as in connection with Il
ect worh done under it, to give notice
ne all Corners what ledge is Intended
be In the case of Gleason V. Mimi
Ter Co. Is New ASS. the court said:
he notice is generally, and for safe
de ought always to be, posted immeii;
ms ely upon the discovery of the vel
ar before there is any time to survey t
'ed ground, and ascertain the bearing a.
ne distances of natural OBJECTS or pc
SEES manent monuments in the neishh,
mood: and besides, the claim REFER
an to by the notice is always sufficient
DOL identified by the fact that it is post
ses on, or in the immediate proximity
es- the groupings. A notice, claiming
dis location on this vein has only o
cen meaning"
,de, 1t will be seen that our statute h
ST. gone farther and makes it the duty
and the locator, after he has made d
i'm covery to put his location notice
APP such point of discovery. Proof
ere posting location notice at cert;
up. point, containing a recital therein Il
a discovery mad there been made.
'on in the case of the Ramsey ExtensiC
oue notice would not be evidence pri
'o1v facie of discovery, as contended