Iditarod pioneer., 1915-10-02
'IDLTAROD CASES
 AREDE'lI' E'lI'hk l EXAMINED

The decision of Judge Bunnell in the case of w. r. Duffy ct al. Vs. DaVIa otrandberg was received from Fairbanks in the last mail, and as 1t deals with a question which Is of more than usual importance to mining interests hereabOuts, portion Of the rulings IS given here.
 The suit was brought to restrain trespass upon mining claim of the plaintiff, and to recover damages for wood cut by the de tenGant thereon. The case hinged upon the question as to whether the plaintiff had proved valid mining claim Judge Bun nell says:
 The evidence Is that Cleary creek IS in a placer mining belt; that several creeks Ill this section have produced gold in paying quantities. paying mine, or one pro auclng gold in paying quantities, IS to be construed with reference to whether 1t will pay the cost of operation, profits being in the nature Of excess By new methods of operation, claims once abandoned have be- come paying mines. It Is safe to say that the vast majority of placer mining claims ln this territory do not show gold Ill paying quantities in every shalt or in every open cut The 'paystreak' IS difficult to locate, and such may not exist, but It IS more liable to be discovered by the claimant prospecting his claim and doing the annual assessment work thereon with confidence ln the value of the claim by virtue of the Gls covery testified to have been made, than by the defendant, who seeks to cut the timber thereon and denies the existence of mineral therein. According to the evidence, in the opinion of the court, such discoveries of gold have been made as are sufficient to justify the court in holding that prior to June 1, 1914, a valid discovery of gold had been made within the boundaries of the Broken Snowshoe Association placer mining claim
 The evidence on the question Cf the al legged trespass IS very conclusive. There IS some doubt as to the amount of wood cut and hauled away The defendants only ex cuse fer the trespass IS that he considered the Iand more valuable for timber than for mining, and that plaintiffs were not holding the claim in good faith as placer mining claim The defendant was not permitted to show that the land was more valuable for timber than for mineral. It Is well established rule that the determination of the character of the land prior to final entry and issuance Of patent Is entirely tor the land department.
 "The timber on the Broken Snowshoe Association claim IS available for use by the plaintiffs for certain specific purposes prior to patent They have right to keep and preserve 1t standing upon their mining claim until such time as they require It III carrying on mining operations on said claim They have no right to cut and sell the timber It appears to the court that there Is only one safe rule by which the damage to mining claim, as such, by reason of timber trespass, can be ascertalned, and that IS by showing the value of the claim before the trespass compared with its value after the trespass No stumpage value has been shown except the price of 25 cents per cord charged by the government. This cannot be considered as a measure of the damage. Ii IS simply the price per cord collected by the government for certain timber sales The damage to the claimants may be less or many times more 1t was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show by reasonably accurate computation the actual damages sustained by them as owners of the placer mining claim This they have not done.
 "The defendant will be restrained from further trespass, in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and nominal dam ages will be allowed plaintiffs in the sum icf one dollar"