Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1907-09-18
NICHOLS LEASE IS TERMINATE
 BY COURT.
(Fron ThursAay's Dsiiv. ,

| nv vu'H'ioH VI What WOThs tho for. feiturc of n lease is involved in N. suit of the Braganza Gold Min,. company vs. ]. NJ. Nichols, which VI, tried last week. The plaintiff sued fo, the annulmcnt of the lease held bv I NJ. Nichols and for an accoun,ino h, tween the parties to the action a, |, tho proceeds of the tailings dunn D, well as upon tho mine, upon the b,,, of tho royalty provided for in n, lease. Judgment was given for plain. tin
 September :, 1907, in announcing nj, decision on this casc tho court said.
 construc this lease between ,h, Braganza Gold Mining company And Nichols to include in it's terms the tail. ings dump SO as to permit Nichol, {, make such disposition of it AS b. might sec fit under the terms of A. lease.
 There was claim made for tho no.. session of the property and a forfeit. urc asserted under the terms of ,h. lcasc on the 9th day of April of tai, year. Tho lease was one year from July 1, 1906. have considered tb, proof relating to tho allegations i, the complaint as to certain violation, of the terms of the lease which w,,. sought to be made relating to .h. forfeiture of the lease. think tb. proof fails to establish any breach of tho covenants of the lease on .b. part of Nichols, with the exception of the tearing up and displacing of ,h. tramway, and I am inclined to think under a strict construction of the leas that that would be n waste, and l con fcss that l am not very clear on ,ha point. ] am inclined in that directiol from n consideration of the terms o the lease, and from the law and .h evidence in the case. Under that yes of the ease there was dcterminaiio, oI the lease. l think the matter is practically little importance cxcep possibly in the matter of the injuaa tion and the injunctivc order
 Tho holding of the court is tha, ih lease was forfeited and terminated of April 9th; that thcrc be an accoun ing between the parties with rcferen to the proceeds of the tailings dun as well as of the mine upon the ba' of the royalty provided for in q lease. am not able to say exact what that amount is but the s,ateme| made by the Shelter company, thin perhaps, determines the whole thin and if you will sec Mir. Sanford pe haps you can agree upon the eu amount without the necessity of a further accounting in the matter. Dop you think you can!
 By Mir. Morrison: Probably @ don't know.
 By the Court: There is a feat in the lease that has not been dis scd. There is n provision tha, price of certain concentrating tab shall bc paid to the lessee upon
 termination of tho lease. Has that m ter been waivcdi
 By Mir. Morrison: It depends v the construction of the lease
 have ayways insisted that we entitled to the actual value of the centrators. There is this language was made by Nichols in the staten
 when he submitted his claim
 By the Court: But they dld agree upon that basis. The proof
 this case did not establish that
 may he necessary to take further
 as to that, unless you agree what
 value of the concentrators may be Ky Mir. Morrison: Do you find
 we are entitled to the value Of
 conccntratorsf
 By the Court: That is inc term the lease. It makes no difference the lease terminated. , By Mir. Morrison: The Court
 that the injunction was proPe'F
 suedf
 By the Court: Yes; 1t only aP
 to the running of the mill and I'M n believe, not to the talings
 By MT. Morrison: Yes; 1t pe'' us from doing anything.
 By tho Court: The original ' tion did, but that was set a"o'' the latter restricted ercly the toin of the mill and the mine
 the papers are here. You may ''