Bisbee daily review., 1908-09-22
ASSESSMENT
WORKvALUEDAT
ACTUAL COST
Judge Nave of Globe Renders
an Opinion of Great Import
ance to Miners of This Ter
ritoy.

GLOBE. Sept 21.-Among the decis-
ions handed down by Judge Nave yes
terday morning in the district court
was decision In the case of Porter
vs.. Wallace, which is of great interest
10 mine owners in this territory in
that il construes the requirements O.
the federal and territorial law as to
what work shall be deemed sufficIen.
annual expenditure upon or for the
benefit of an unpatented mining claim
TO save the claim from forfeiture.
The federal statute on this subject
is as follows: "On each claim located
after the Tenth day of May, 1872, ana
until patent has been issued therefor,
not less than one hundred dollars
worth OF labor shall be performed OF
improvements made during each year. /"
At the trial of this case, the testt>
mony was substantially as follows:
That the plaintiff, George E. Porter,
had worked upon the two claims an
average of eight hours day for fifty
three days, besides furnishing sup
plies and MATERIAL that. during this
time. he had accomplished in actual
sinking in a winze twelve 10 fourteen
feet deep, six to nine feet.
IL was contended by Wallace, VINO
was a relocator, that the value of the
labor, as SHOWN by the actual number
of feet of work accomplished was not
sufficient to meet the requirements oi
the statute, upon the theory that this
work could be contracted to be per
formed for SO to S12 a foot
The plaintiff, on the other hand, con-
tended that, under the adverse condi-
tons, and for the reason that he was
compelled to do all the work himseIf,
he could not accomplish more than
three or four inches day, and That,
having actually worked fifty-three
days, and furnished the necessary, sup
plies, he should be entitled to be al
lowed the value of his work measured
by the time he was actually employed
in performing the work, together with
the cost of the necessary supplies
The court, upon these facts, held
that while the actual work accom-
plished shoul dbe considered in de-
termining whether or not sufficient an
nuaI expenditure had been made to
hold the claims, it was not the only
method of arriving at this determine
ton; that the statute did not provide
that the one hundred dollars worth OF
abor to be performed or improve
ments made upon a claim during each
year should be measured by the
amount of labor performed in feet, but
that, if one man working upon min
ing claim Iabored a sufficient number
OF days, in good faith, for the purpose
of performing his annual labor, to save
the claim from forfeiture, he wodru
he 70. a
Dor for the number of days actualIy
consumed by him in its performance;
that any other construction of the
statute would work a gross injustice
upon a single claim owner who had
no means to employ assistance-t1is
for the reason that il is well known
fact that two men working toSerneI
in shaft or Wine can perform three
or four times the amount of work
that one man, working alone, can per
form in the same character of ground.
1t must not be supposed from this
decision that a claim owner can mold
his claim from forfeiture by doing ne.
sultcry work during number of days
the total of which at $3.50 or 81 day
would amount to S100-but the meaning
of the decision is that, if the result OF
labor performed shows the good taith
of the owner of the claim and his in
tention to comply with the statute the
value of the labor win not be measm-
ed solely by the value per foot for
which the work might be contracted
to be performed provided, that the
work is performed in a manner which
is beneficial to the claim and tends TO
its improvement.
The plaintiff in this case was rep
resented by the firm of Stoneman a
Jacobs.