The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1909-12-25

In an opinion handed down by Judge
Stevens in the case of the Wheeling
Gold Range Mining company VS.. F. d.
Bale, the judge made a little excursion
into the moral relm of mine promoting,
and a review Of the opinion will be
found Of general interest to any mining
community:
F. d. Bale sold q group of u~ndevelop-
ed mining claims to eastern purchasers
who organized a company and hoated
stock. They never paid anything for
the claims, except some stock of the
company. Afterward they became in
debted to Mr.. Bale for services and he
sued the company; the company retail
lated by sueing Mr.. Bale for damages
on account Of false representation in
the sale Of the property. Judge Stew
ems non-suited the case and fixed the
cost upon the plaintiff.
After reciting that the plaintiff
could not have been damaged in the
purchase Of the property even If it had
been misrepresented to him because he
had paid nothing for it, the decision
continued:
The facts upon which plaintiff bases
his charges Of fraud and deceit in this
case, seems to be the ore from which
the assays were obtained, and the sam
pies which were delivered to the repro.
sentatives Of the company-were not
taken from these properties. Possibly
that is SO, and yet, in the experience of
miners, especially in gold mining, it is
known that a very rich pocket of gold
might be found in a claim, and no more
found afterwards. Many instances of
that kind have been recorded-so fire.
quently that it has come to be a COM
mon saying among miners and among
men who talk mines, that ssgold is
where you find it, and You cannot say
that it is anywhere else. Formations
do not seem to be an unfailing guide
for determining the matter, because
some formations will carry gold in large
quantities in some places; in other
places, in the same formation, it will
not carry a particle or a trace.
The company caused its own experts
to visit the properties in question, who
say they are satisfied that the samples
they had assayed came from these
properties. The results reported by them
compare favorably with the statements
of defendant as to the values Of the
ore.
There is another proposition involved
in the case which seems to me would
preclude plaintiff Is recovery, which is,
that the defendant never made any
representations whatever as to the value
of these properties. The allegations Of
the complaint are that the properties,
if they had been as represented, would
have been worth $12,000-is purely
speculative, and does not bring this
case within the rule announced in the
cases cited by counsel for plaintiff as a
basis for recovery for fraud and deceit.
If he had represented the property
to be worth a certain amount, and had
based all Of his negotiations upon such
statements, even then many of the
authorities say that it would rave been
purely a matter Of opinion, and no basis
for a recovery
In this case, however, plaintiff must
not only base its right of recovery upon
the fraud and deceit of defendant on
whose statements plaintiff relied and
was injured thereby, but plaintiff must
not enter the realms of speculation to
determine as to whether or not that
property would have been worth $12,
900, if plaintiff s statements had been
true.
There were one or two witnesses
asked: .What would be the value of
the property if it had been as represent
ed?' One said he did not know any
thing about it; another said he thought
it would be worth $4,000, if he could
not get more; and the other said he
thought it would be worth $4,000, if
he could not get more.
Leaving the impression upon the
mind of the court that mining property
was worth, in the opinion Of the wit
nesses, all they could get for it. I am
satisfied, however, that the value of all
undeveloped mines is purely speculative.
So there is no basis upon which the
court could fix the amount of recovery
in this case, even though it should be
found that the plaintiff had been
damaged.
1t would seem that no damage what
ever had accrued to the company, be