Bisbee daily review., 1907-06-04
IS NJ LONGER
 IGNORED
Saltwater BilIn Doesn't Have to Divide with the Man Who Staked Him to Alaska Gold Fields.

SAN FRANCISC, June 3.-The Gfubstake, one of the most honered of California institutions, has appar- ently been utterly done away with by circuit court decision. Ever since '49 the system of grubstaking pros pector for the privilege O fsharing in whatever he finds has been in vogue. More than one great fortune on the coast has come to home-stay- CTS who have outfitted mine hunters; in fact. the validity of such contracts has never been questioned in this Gates, who. OF a thousand dollar grubstake. found a fortune of $750.- 900, has won a verdict declaring the grubstaker can not collect.
 "Swiftwater'' Bill Gates showed that his old luck had not deserted him when the United States Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision sus- taining the District Court of Alaska in the suit brought against him by Isaac l.. Marks of this city The ac- tion avs instituted to recover S150,- 900 on an agreement made by Marks and Gates in Seattle on April 27 1902
 The agreement was that in consid. eration of 5000 paid by Marks to | Gates the latter was to transfer twen 1 ty per ceHt Of all the propert ywhich Eshall be acquired either by location ] purchase or otherwise in Alaska by f Gates.
 The evidence showed that Gates owed Marks S11 ,225, which was wiped ont by Marks. and Gates was giveI the sum of Sl000 in cash when the l agreement was signed.
 Gates went to Alaska and acquired I property valued at s750000, out oi
 which Marks demanded $150,00O as
 his share under the agreement.
 4 demurrer was entered on the 1 ground that the contract was so un equitable as not to entitIe the appli
 ant ct relief. The demurrer was sus I tained and the case dismissed. An
 appeal was then taken.
 Judge Gilbert in his decision states | that the written contract was bar. gain made in the dark. It bound Gates during his lifetime to transfer to Marks one-fifth interest in all prop erty of whatever description me might acquire in Alaska by whatever means whether by location, purchase, gift inheritance, the value of which neither party could estimate even approxi- mately.
 The complaint is silent as to the means whereby the property was ob- tained by Gates, but the value is alleged to be s750,000." Reads Judge Gilbert's decision: From adght that appears in the complaint Gates pur- shased this property and paid its full value.
 "The appellant (Marks) for the-pay. ment of 5000 in cash and the can eellation of debt of $1i,225, which may not be valid or colIectable, now comes into court and asks the court to decree that Gates transfer to him property valued at $150,000" Judge Gilbert quotes Justice Brad | ley of Missouri in case of a some
 what similar nature, where the court says:
 | He comes into court with very bad grace when he asks to use its extraordinay power to put him in pos
 session of $3o.000 worth of stock for
 which he only paid s5G. The court
 Is not bound to shut it's eyes to the evident character of the transaction
 It will never lend its aid to carry out
 an unconscicnable bargain. but will
 leave the party to his remedy at law