Bisbee daily review., 1912-10-19
DECISION SETS
 BIG PRECEDENT
Supreme Court of Arizona Rules in Favor of Fred Peachy Against o. w.
 M. GaddiS Mine Suit
CLARK WINS VICTORY

PRESCOTT. Oct. lS:-Of unusual interest to mining men in Arizona as we'll as throughout the west is the case of Fred s. Peaohy vs. O. D. NJ. Gaddis. both of Mohsve county, which was recently decided by the Supreu Court of Arizona.
 Aside from the fact that the CO.,. troversy involved the major part oi the very valuable group or claims near Union Pass, Mohaye couly, now owned by the Frisco Mites and Power company, the law eaiJ was unique. The group of clah involved is locally known as the 'aTragedy Group and had been owned and worked by MT. Gaddis, of Kingman and others. for seven or eight years, prior 10 the advent of Peachy into the case.
 Did No Assessment Work
 During the year 19O7, the owners did no assessment .wo<k on any Of the claims. but on January l. 1908, re located them in their own names, fully performing the assessment work within ninety days. Early in 1909 the owners bonded the claims
 
 the Frisco Mines and Power com pany. These men performed eXteE, siye developments. constructed a large mill. and had expended about Sl00.00O on the property, and were practically ready to begin opera tions on a large scale when Alr Peachy appeared on the scene in September, 1910, and proceeded tJ wHa heart of the Tragedy group. He followed this up in December, 1910, by initiating in Mohave county the lawsuit which has just been dispos- ed of by the supreme court
 . Fraud Claimed
 Mir Peachy contended that it was a fraud on the government for Cad. dis and his associates to neglect to 60 their assessment work for 1907, while intending to relocate in 1908 That thereby the relocatiOns were made only for the purpose of avoid ing assessment work, and were not therefore. in good faith That the notices of relocation contained a declaration that the claims were re located as abandoned property, and therefore,. they could only be lawfully relocated by parties other than the original holders. This sounded ingenious. but the courts did not take these contentious seTI ously. Without saying so the cour evidently fonud it hard to under stand why a man who has Owne. a mining claim for years and cN pended much money and work upol it, should have any less right to re locate it than one who had neVc had anything to do with it.
 Claims Never Abandoned
 But the main point, of course, wa that the claims had never beel abandoned so as 10 become subjeC to relocation at all. or at least they had been abandoned, Lh abandonment was cured, with al rights in the claims restored by resumption of work on a large seal before the adverse locations c Peachy were made. The decision therefore, was against Peachy an in favor of Gaddis and his colleal ues.
 As a case of jumping, pure an simple. this suit was one of unpa allelled audacity, and it was d nounced by the press as well g the community in Kingman wheI the facts were well known It is
 matter of congratulation that n courts of Arizona have set the se Of their disapproval upon such pr ceedings, otherwise the deyelopmel of mining property in Ariz0I through the enlistment of outsiC capital would soon have become 9 ceedingly difficult if not impCssIhl
 F.. s. Clark of this city was attOr ey for the defendant.