Iditarod pioneer., 1913-11-01
Commissioner kih-echt's C2inicn

In these eases the acCUSed were charged with the crime of criminal trespasS in vio- latcn of Sec 67, Chap. III, Part I of the Criminal Code. which provides that if any rerson other than sn officer cn lawful busi- ness sLa go or trcspass on 2ny lands or premises II the lawful occupation of an other, and shall fail, neglect or refuse to depart therefror1 immediately and remain away until permitted to return upon the verbal CT printed or written notice of the owner CT Ferson in the lawful occupation of said lands and premises, such tresPass7r shall be deemed guilty of misdemeancr, and upGn conviction thereof shall be pun- ished, etc.
 To secure cCnyictiCn under tEis statute there must be 6 leged with certainty ani proven beyond a reasonable doubt: The lands or prcn.i:es, the lawful occupation of another, the invasion of such occupation by the accused, the giving by the party in such occupation cf the required verbal or printed notice, and the fa;l2re neglect or refusal of the accused to depart immediately trom such lands CT premises and to remain ar:ay until permitted to return
 l. will be noted that this statute is rather a peculiar one, in that the prosecution does liJG nGs S lD Gi-tSt iiDi t'loht tsiiJ NANll- intent CT damages, either actu-I or con- structive, and that the accused cannot plead ignorance of the facts, righteous motive CT that no injury had been done. That statute is an Oregon law of 1862, and hot witkstanding its venerable years, this court fails to find any adjudieated case which throws any light upon the reason for this law, the conditions to which 1t was Aten'lcI to apply, or the wrongs which 1t was meant to remedy.
 Beth of the accused rested the:r defense solely upon the general denial; and t was only fer the prosecution to prove peyond reasonable doubt each and every material allegation necessary to complete the crime.
 The circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit in the case of Thatcher vs, Brown. l90 F. 70S, decided that the failure to do the annual assessment work for any year upon a rlacer mining claim thereby worked an absolute forfeiture of the claim, and no subsequent act could save CT revive that particular claim; and acting upon the au- thority of this case, Judge Fuller, at the last Id;tarod term of the district court, III the case of Albrecht vs Riley ct d., he'd that failure to prove the doing of the an- nual assessment work fer one year so lar destroyed the chain of title that tresnass based upon constructive possession could not be maintained
 According to the ruling of Jud dse Fuller, which must control this court, It WAS, Tn these cases, absolutely necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all assess ment work had been done, in order that any action might be maintained upon the constructive possession of paper t'tle.
 In the case of Mcdonald there was ret only not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but there was no proof at all of the assess ment work for 1911 having been done. nat destroyed all possibility of maintaining tres pass based upon constructive possession.
 The Yukon Gold Company, as ieSsees' could stand no better as to constructive possession than could the owners, and that leaves the trespass to be maintained upon the actual physical possession of the lands mad premises by the Yukon Gold Com