The copper era and Morenci leader. [volume] (Clifton, Ariz.) 1911-1929, 1915-03-19
]. H. KERBY IS. GIVEN
DECISION AGAINST
A. G. COMPANY
Ground in Controversy Is Declared by
U. s. Land Officials in Phoenix to be
Mineral in Character and Refuses
Application of Company for Script.

U. s. Land Officials in Phoenix to be
Mineral in Character and Refuses
Application of Company for Script.
A decision was rendered this week
by Thos. F. NVeedin, Register, and
Jno. J. Birdno, Receiver, of the u.
S. Land Office at Phoenix in favor of
James H KerDy, in contest proceed
ing brought by Kerby vs. F. N. Flynn
Agent for the Arizona Copper Com
pany, Ltd, and involving title to a
placer claim in the vicinity of Mo
renci
The testimony in the case was
taken before Ed. Leonard last Dec
ember, sitting as a U. s. Court
Commissioner and was heard in Phoe-
nix last January. The question of
title to this particular placer claim
has been in controversy for the past
six years. The decision holds that
the ground in question is not agricul-
tural and the placer claim is valid.
The decision in full is as follows:
August ", 1913, Francis N. Flynn
filed Valentine Scrip Selections, Serial
No. 023224 for unsurveyed land. prob
ably the SW Ia NV Ia and NV Ia
SW IA of Sec. 55, T. As, R. 20 e.
G.. & s. r. Mer. On October G.,
1913, James H. Kerby filed application
to contest said Selections, alleging
that the land embraced therein was
mineral in character.
Evidence of service of notice, and
answer with evidence of service.
were filed in this office October 24th,
and November 18th, 1913, respective
ly. =
On order duly made, the submission
of testimony was begun December Is,
n rrn -
Commissioner, Clifton, Arizona, final
hearing being had before this office
January 81, 1915.
A preponderarce of the evidence in
this case shows, conclusively, that
the surface formation and the surface
configurhtion of the land inscontrover-
sy is utterly vaIueless for agricul-
turaI purposes, and there is nothing
in the record to indicate that it has
ary exceptional value for grazing
purposes. Uuon the other hand, a
prepcnderance of the evidence i'm
peils the conclus;o n thatSit should be
class'fied az nfineTal land. Briefly
sutaed up, the evidence supporting
this conclusion shows:
1. That Bench No. placer miI-
hlg claim, which covers the ground IN
COM iroversy, was located on the 14th
day of September, 1909, by P. Rel-
SINGER, ]. r. Hampton, ] H. Kerby,
WADE Hampton, Chas. Fond. 7
Freeman. J. L. Spaw and Earl Ma
SON.; that subsequently the Arizona
Copper Company acquired the in
terests of all these locators except
j. H. Kerby, tie contestant herein:
that said Company also holds as
placer mining ground Morenci No.
Morenci No. 2, Bench No. 1 and
Bench No. 2, placer claims, portions
of which, together with a portion of
Bench No. 5, in controversy herein,
make up the total area of the scrip
selections involved; that said defend
ant company. the Arizona Copper
Company, has held said placer min
Ing claims and performed the annual
work thereon each year since 1904,
up to this date. We must assume
therefore, in the absence of a showing
to the contrary, that said company,
whose managers are thoroughly COM
petent and experienced mining men,
having held this ground and made an
nuaI expenditures thereon under the
provisions of the placer mining laws,
has been actuated by good faith and
belief that the surface indications
justified them in expecting to find, by
proper development work, placer
gold in commercial quantity To as
sumo otherwise would be tantamount
to charging said company with an in
tent to deceive the government as to
the real character of the ground, and
to hold possession thereof under false
pretense.
g.. That within the limits of the
ground in controversy there is a stone
quarry yielding good building stone;
that a IorOo T0nrfinr 0f ~
the claim involved is occupied by
beds of ella conglomerate the sur
face of which is covered by iron
''hoat.' ella conglomerate'' is
a local name given by the U. s.
Geological Survey to certain distinc-
tive recemented gravel bars which
abound along the ella river and it's
main tributaries. 1t is a matter of
common knowledge among miners and
prospectors, familiar with the mineral
zones along and adjacent to said
streams, that wherever this float
iron is found associated with "Gila
conglomerate,' the fact is a depend
able Indication of the presence in
the testimony in this case shows that
the ella conglomerate, situate within
the boundaries of the ground in con-
troversy, are no exception to this rule,
as number of the witness testified
that they had ''panned dirt at vari-
GUS places on the ground in ques-
ton and found gold. 1t is also
shown by the evidence that 'fpay
dirt" has been found in numerous
beds of this conglomerate, within the
immediate vicinity of this ground.
We do not deem it necessary to re-
view the voluminous evidence in this
case in toto, as it is generally corro-