The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-12-06
MINER RESUMES WORK
ON CLAIM He ABANDONED.
LEGAL STATUS OF THE GROUND
AS DEFINED IN DECISIONS
OF THE COURTS.

The following question and answer
throws light on an interesting subject
in mining districts, taken from the
Engineering and Mining Journal:
Question.
To decide a good natured argument
will the Journal please publish the
answer to the following question: A
locates a claim and does work on i,
as required by law. For various rea
sons he abandons II. Several years
later he returns to the same ground
and. finding no intervening rights, re-
sumes work without locating again
He opens an orebody, whereupon b
then covers the claim with new To-
rights are valid?
Answer.
The apparent difficulty in this case
lies in the matter of abandonment. The
courts have held consistently that
abandonment involves intention and
that the burden of proof rests with
the party who asserts that claim
was abandoned. A peculiar analogy
may serve to emphasize this point. A
mother leaves her infant in a field,
with intent to abandon it, and goes
to some other locality to work She
thinks of the child as a weakling, or
unattractive, or nuisance, but after
lapse of time she goes back and
finds the child. Others may have
seen it, but no one has taken any ac-
ton to alter the status of the child
or of her relation to it. She nurses
the child and continues as If nothing
had happened, having reconsidered her
decision to abandon it. If the child
thrives, any stranger who had observ-
ed the infant in the field and had
passed by without taking any action
would find it hard task to convince
a court that the child had been aban-
dCned and should be surrendered to
the claimant offering to adopt.
Forfeiture of rights in a mining
claim, however, involves the question
OF whether the locator has complied
with the law. But forfeiture does
not become an accomplished fact until
a third party has interviewed. If II be-
comes a matter of public knowledge
that claim has been abandoned, or
II for any other reason it becomes
lawfully subject to forfeiture, the
ground is open to location bysanother,
in the same manner as II no location
Of the same had ever been made
the original locator has no further
legal standing in connection with the
ground in question.
In the case propounded it is clear
that forfeiture was never made eff
fective. The mining law stipulates
that upon failure to comply with the
required conditions, the claim shall be
oren to location, provided that the
original locators, their heirs, assigns,
or legal representatives, have not re-
sumed work. upon the claim after fail
ure and before such location:' In
on this phase of mining
law Lindley cites, among others, the
case of Belk VS.. Meagher:
"A located in 1864, and the location
was valid and subsisting when the
act of May 10, 1872, was passed. No
work was performede however after
that date until June, 1875, when A re-
sumed work upon the claims and did
to reestablish his original
rights. B attempted to relocate on
December 10, 1876. 1t was held that
AS resumption. protected the claim
from relocation until January l, 1877.
There could be no forfeiture until that
date. BIS relocation was therefore
void and did, not take effect on jan
uary /, 1877, although A failed to
perform any work during the year
1876"
In the case propounded, If A made
no public record of abandonment and
worked continuously after resumption
of work, AS rights are valid. If A did
make a formal declaration Of aband-
onment, then BIS rights are valid or
he at least has a good chance in court
II A resumed work and stopped again
before he had performed the labor
making up one years delinquency, and
Dc Iooo fiop u,oc mazda after q raa son
able period of time had elapsed since
said stopping, then BIS rights are valid
The validity of the declaration of
abandonment" and the duration of "a
reasonable period Of time" would be
matters for a jury or a court to de-
eide.