Amador ledger., 1909-09-17
THE GARIBALDI-6RILLO
PLACER MINE CASE
NEITHER SIDE GETS JUDGMENT
Full Text of the Opinion of Court in this
Famous Suit.

formed by defendants or by Skinner or
his grantees or assigns upon the surface
OF the ground, nor within the boundaries
of the claim prior to the location claim
ed by plaintiff.
Plaintiffs contend that as there has
been no labor performed within the
boundaries Of the claim until after
the location claimed by them there has
been no annual labor performed upon
the claim, but it was said in Hall v.
Kearney, 80 Pac. Rep. 373, where
work done outside of claim tends to
its development, it is immaterial If it
is upon adjoining patented ground, and
running tunnel for purpose of prospect
ing two separate and distinct claims
owned by same person is to be
credited to both, and the owner is not
required also to perform work on sur
face. "
Book v. Justice Mining Co, So Fed.
Rep. 100. And again De Noon v. Morri
son, SO CAL, l65, Running tunnel
on an adjoining clatim in close proxi-
nifty is sufficient to hold claim. And
to the same effect is Hahn v. Matters,
80 Pac. Rep, l25.
Giving due effect to the foregoing
authorities the evidence in the case
fairly establishes that during the time
they have claimed ownership, defend
ants have in good faith each year per-
formed the necessary development work
upon the twenty acres in dispute, by
their work in driving the tunnel for
ward
Each side to this controversy claims
that the other has not made dis
covery within the limits of the claim,
and each in defense of its own location
has intimated that no discovery is nee
essary to perfect claim upon placer
mineral land
"Discoyery.is Just as essential in case
of placers as it is in lode locations, and
the rules as to what constitutes a valid
discovey in the latter apply with equal
force to the former, with such modii-
cations only as necessarily flow from the
different forms in which the deposits
occur . According to a ruling
of the department, the fact that the
land has been returned.m mineral by the
surveyor general does not obviate the
necessity of discovery as the basis
of a placer location, as without such
discovery the location is void
| Lindley on Mines, sec. 437.
Although in some instances courts
have questioned the necessity of an &C
tual discovery of mineral upon gold
placer ground it is established by the
decided weight of authority that appro-
pirate discovery is as necessary to the
location of placer claim as to the loca-
tion of lode claim
Steele V. Tanana Mines r. Co. United
States Circuit Court of Appeals. 49,
Rep. 679.
In Miller Christman, $40 Cal AS
in speaking of the location of
an oil claim the court said: The
location of oil claims is governed by
the mineral laws applicable to the loca-
tion of placer mining lcaims. The two
requirements admittedly essential to the
validity of location such as this are
That the location mus. be dstincly
marked upon the ground so that the
boundaries can be readily traced, and
that there must be discovery OF min
erals within the limits of the land To-
Gated.
1t is now we'll settled that a discovery
of mineral within the limits of the claim
is an essential to the validity of the To-
cation in the case of placer as it in the
lode locations
New England etc. Oil Co. V. Congdon
l25 Cal 2l3.
There was a serious controversy be-
tween counsel during the argument as
to whether the plaintiff Garbaldi's tes-
timony showed that he had made a dis.
coverry of gold within the limits of the
claim. The following is the complete
testimony of the witness as to dis
covery as disclosed by the short hand
reporters notes of the trial;
Dues You were present in assisting
in prospecting the claim and taking SAM
Piles out?
Ans. Yes sir
Dues. Just describe what you did?
Ans, Just took two pans OF dirt and
them, one at each place, two
places,