Mohave County miner and our mineral wealth., 1921-04-01

when it is a continuation of the same vein outside of the lines of his claim that it is within the lines of his claim; in other words, in order to assert this right of apex the vein outside must be identified with and continuation of the vein inside of the lines. Identity and continuity are essential to the exer- else of apex rights, and after the iden- tity and continuity of the vein has been proven, there must also exist the con tinuity of right, as indicated by the statute. The mineral deposit within any lode or vein may be reduced or disap- found again in the same general course with the same mineral within short distance, there is presumption of iden- tity, but if the mineral entirely d1sap- pears, or the walls of the Assure stop so that it's identity can no longer be traced, the right to follow such vein outside of the apex owners claim IS gone. If veins are separated perman- ently and cannot be followed as ae 1ns same vein, and if it is necessary to pass through great distances of country rock in order to connect them, in which dis
 tances there are neither m1neralzed walls nor seams, such veins must pc deemed separate and distinct opes and cannot De identified as one and the same. The connection between an apex and the ore body in dispute can only be made by following the continuous streaks or body of quartz or ore, or by passing through vein matter, and such connection cannot be made by fol- lowing such material or indication as the practical miner would follow in the ex- pectation of finding ore.
 The burden of proof is always upon the apex claimant...--Wha may constt- tute a sufficient discovery to warrant a location of a mining claim may be en- tirely insufficient to justify the loca- tor in claiming or exercising the rights reserved by the statute. That which constituted discovery that will make a location valid, is very different thing from what constitutes an< apex to which attaches the statutory right to invade the possession of and appro- priate the property which is presumed to belong to the adjoining owner. It IS the object and policy of the law to encourage the prospector and miner In their efforts to discover mineral, and, therefore, as between conflicting lode claimants, the law is Hberally construed in favor of the senior location But where one claims what pr1ma facle pe- longs to another because of the apex in the claimants location, more r1g1d rule of construction against the claim ant prevails. In applying liberal rule to one class of cases and rigid rule to another, the courts 1ustify thelr ac. each section of the revised statuts and the whole policy of the entire Ia" should not be overlooked.
 This case must be decided from 3 practical viewpoint as the miners Tina conditions in the ground today, or must be decided upon the theories ana testimony of geologists in accordance with conditions as they existed many thousands of millions of years ago. n the decision be based upon the theory and testimony or the geoiost;o, 1osnt;o,, in the Oatman district could be secure or valid, The fundamental purpose or the apex law was to give the miner Wnat he found. The law was . passeGG ass Gnc0rrin9 cUr % the hardships incidental to the lire o1 the prospector. when Ell Htlty locat- ed the Tom Reed vein on January l, 1904, could it be said, under the theory of the geologists, that he discovered the ore body beneath the Big Jim claim, taking their testimony not only az 70 the downward displacement o1 1opr hundred and thirty feet, but as 70 t@ne @ horizontal movement? In . order .or and L continuity of right to the vein Whicn ne discovered on that date, he would nave to travel a great distance Tn oroeI ~ find @ continuation ot his Ve1n or 'nas discovery before the maAiefy 1""A'
 cured.
 We are reliably informed by geologtsts that this northwest section O! Arzona' including the San Francisco Mining DIS trict and oatman, experienced aS soms mS
 
 sank about six thousand feet. Witn this in mind, the Court is compelled to view this case from practicat sIano- point and adopt the views Of the prac- tical miners, and view the conditions as thev are today and as they were when the rights of all parties herein were acquired. uo+,,,s different from the continuity of vein. For Instance, under the apex law. tae identity of vein may be clearly proven and said vein may be shown to nave such practical continuity as will l,e1a comply Icg attach to said vein that continuity o1 right which would entitle the ape. . 70, own1 n1 an adjoining owner. For instance, sup pose that when the Tom Feed rvsia ven claim, instead of stopping abruptly against the Mallery fault, as it does, 1t spread out and extended on literally into the subsurface of the Big Jim claim7 Under the apex law no extra lateral right attaches to a blanket vein or one that extends laterally. Again,