Amador ledger., 1909-09-17
6aribaIdi-6riIIo Decision

Dues. Have you ever prospected the
ground before?
Ans No, sir
Cues You know that it had gold from
other parties telling you, in paying guam,
titles?
Ans. Yes, sir
Upon cross examination he testified
that there was no gravel upon the sur
face of the claim that the ground was
covered with lava cap, and that it was
deep in some places.
1t did not appear when or by whom
he was told that the ground contained
gold in paying quantities, nor was il
shown that it was known or generally
reputed or understood in the community
that the ground contained gold, or was
valuable for placer mining.
In the case of Miller VS.. Chrisman,
t40 CAL, page 444, the supreme court OF
this state, in discussing the sufficiency
of the evidence to prove discovery of
Gil. and after referring to the law by
which the rules governing the location
OF placer mining claims is made applic-
able to oil claim locations, had this to
say:
Giving fullest weight to the testimony,
il amounts to no more than this, that
Barieau had walked over the land at the
time he posted his notice, and had dis.
covered indications Of petroleum. He
saw spring and the oil comes out and
floats over the water in the summer
time, when it is hot. In June, 1895,
there was a little water with oil and a
little oil with water coming out. 1t was
dripping over rock about two feet high.
There was no pool; it was Just dripping
a little water and oil, not much water
We think it clear that such testi-
mony does not establish a discovery
within the meaning of the law. To con-
stitute discovery the law requires some'
thing more than conjecture, hope, or
even indications. he geological formatio
of the country may be such as scientific
research and practical experience have
shown to be likely to yield oil in paying
quantities. Taken with this there may
be other surface indications such as
seepage of oil. All these things COM
bined may be sufficient to justify the
exT ,tation and hope that upon driving a
well to sufficient depth, oil may be dis
covered, but one and all they do not in
and of themselves amount to discov-
cry.
This case of Miller VS.. Christman was
carried to the Supreme Court of United
States, and is reported in volume 1877
u. S. at page 3l4, and the judgment de-
claring the location invalid affirmed, that
court saying:
Giving full weight to the testimony
of Barieau, we should not be justified,
even in a case coming from federal
court in overthrowing the finding that he
had made no discovery There was not
enough in what he claims to have seen
to have justified a prudent person in the
expenditure of money and labor in ex-
ploitation for petroleum.
1t is essential to the validity OF loca-
ton that the discovery of mineral there
on be such that AN ordinarily prudent
man, not necessarily a miner, would be
justified in expanding his time and labor
thereon in the development of the prop
erty''
Cascaden V. Bartolis, l46. Fed. TAI.
Lindley on Mines, sec. 1856
Where persons, situated as are plain
tiffs in this action, who are not in pos
sseson and have expended no labor or
money in developing a claim, but are
asserting title based solely upon an al
legged discovery and marking OF the
boundaries of claim supposed to con-
tain gold bearing gravel in subterranean
channels, and in proof OF such discovery
show that the ground claimed is on a
hill, covered with lava cap, with no
gravel on the surface, and the extent OF
their prospecting is merely taxing ont
two pans OF surface dirt, without any
other showing as to the character OF the
dirt prospected or where it was found or
the geological formation of the ground,
or whether its character is similar to
that where placer gold is usually found,
il seems to me that they have failed to
make discovery such that an ordinarily
prudent man, not necessarily a miner
would be justified in expanding his time
and labor thereon in developing of the
property and have therefore failed to
prove legal title to the property.
As before mentioned, the defendant S