The Alaska citizen., 1914-04-06

locating a claim. as provided by the
new Wickersham mining law for Al
aska. Fred NJ. Brown, judge OF the
Third district, in his ruling of the
case of Likaits against James in
Cordova recently declared that the
purpose of he law is to prevent
one person from stalking 100 many
mining claims in his own name or
that OF another,
The history of the James case and
the ruling of the court at Cordova
have been received here.
A man named Johnson grubstaked
James at Dawson in September. 1912.
the latter having a power-of-attorney
from Johnson executed in 1909. When
James and his party went into the
Chisana in April, 1913. they left con-
siderable of their outfit at James
camp al Beaver creek, about 40
miles from the headwaters of the
Chisana
The power-of-attorney from john
son was left at the camp The
ground in controversy. No. /. above,
Bonanza, was located July s. 1913.
They first discovered gold early in
May A recorder for the new White
river precinct was appointed on May
I, 1918, but did not arrive to take up
his duties until on or about July 20,
1918
In the meantime one OF James
partners had been to Dawson and
back. bringing the news Of the new
recorder and of the Wickersham
law. They arrived from Dawson
about the time the new recorder
got in the district. James at once
sent a messenger to his cabin at
Beaver creek to get the Johnson
power The messenger
met with an accident and did not
return to the dggings until August
!. 1913, when the power was at
once recorded
The notice of location Of No. l
above. Bonanza was filed the same
day. Plaintiff Likaits relocated this
claim on August 20, 1913. and re-
corded the location notice September
10, 1913.
A power-of-attorney from Johnson
to James, dated May 2S, 1913, had
been recorded at Steele creek, Al
aska, in the Fortymile district on
June %, 1913. under the belief that
the Chisana was included in the
limit of the Fourth judicial division.
The sections of the Wickersha1n
law under which the plaintiff claim
ed the original location was invalid
are as follows; That no person
shall hereafter locate any placer
mining claim as attorney for another
unless he is duly authorized thereto
by power-ofattorney in writing,
duly acknowledged and recorded in
any recorders office in the judicial
division where the location is
made"
That any placer ground attempt
ed to be located in violation of this
act shall be null and void, and the
whole area thereof may be located
by any qualified locator as If no
such prior attempt had been made"
In his ruling Judge Brown said IN
part:
at is conceded hat the plaintiff
had actual notice of the markings
on the ground of said No. l Above
Discovery on Bonanza and the loca-
ton certificate and also the power
of-attorney were duly recorded in
that particular precinct two weeks
before plaintiff attempted to make
his location, not as the courts have
said "as a discoverer, but as an
appropriation" an appropriation OF
other mems labor and toll.
"In view of the principles and au-
thorities above cited, l am OF the
opinion that q fair and reasonable
construction of this act is that
forfeiture OF a placer mining claim
Is not worked by failure to record
the power of-attorney before the first
step is taken in making the loca-
ton of such claim, and especially
is this true in case where the
attorney has been duly authorized
thereto by a power-of-attorney ex-
ecuted and acknowledged before
such initial step is taken.
81 again repeat that the evident
purpose and intent OF this act was
to limit the number Of claims that
might be located and not to provide
for a forfeiture for failure to record
the notice of location (for no such
requirement is provided by the acD
and the only purpose Of any record
alton being to give notice, l do not
believe it to be the intent OF the
act to work forfeiture for failure
to record the power-of-attorney,
where it is recorded prior to the