Year: 1875

silver Mining Company to recover the
possession of an abandoned mine, is one
of such general interest to holders OF
mining property, that we transfer syn
opsis Of some of the main poip:s Of Judge
Wallace's decision to our columns. The
question at issue was whether the plaintiff
had abandoned the mine in dispute, and
whether the rights that he had once pos
sessed had been forfeited. 1t has been a
frequent custom in times past TO locate
mining ground, water rights and other


kinds of mining property, and the fact Of


such location having been made would
deter Others from entering into the pos


session Of the property in question, rather
than incur the probabilities Of suit at
law which might be instituted by the


original locators. So long as the county


was thickly populated, each mining dis


trict had local laws Of its own for its gov
ernment, theses laws were in most cases


sufficient to decide all questions of dis
puted rights. With the decadence Of
placer mining the use Of local laws grad
ually died out, and much Of the mineral
ground of this county is now held under
the General Mining Law Of the United
States. Local laws have fallen 50 COM
pletely into disuse as to be ouly tradition
a., though they are yet sometimes referred


to in taking up claims. But by general


consent it now seems that the size Of q


mining location is made to correspond


with the limits fixed by the general land


law, and parties locating ground for min
ing purposes are expected to follow its


requirements.


1t stands to reason that in a county


where all Interests are so dependent upon
successful mining as in this county, the
development of new mines is much de-
sired consideration. Locations of gravel


beds, water rights, etc, are drawback
to our prosperity unless these locations
are followed up with the necessary meas
ures to bring them into value and render
them productive. Yet large bodies Of
mining ground are held in this way, and
the object for which those locations were
made can only be judged as speculative.
Such a course is detrimental in the high
est degree, and it hence becomes a matter
Of public interest to know what consti-
tutes bona fide possession in the absence
of the local law which formerly regulated
the manner of working the claims. In
this view the decision of the Sonoma
county case becomes OF local interest to
this and every other mining county. The
ground taken by Judge Wallace in his
instructions to the jury is applicable to
any similar case that might arise in this
county at any day. We append that por-
tim Of the Judges instructions to the ju-
ry relating to the question OF abandon
ment, remarKing that it applies to mines
of every description, and that the jury
found for the defense. The news of the
verdict was received with great rejoicing
by the people, ii being generally believed
that it was an eminentiy just one;


elf the jury believe from the evidence
that the plaintiff or his grantors left the
premises in controversy vacant and un-
occupied for Il series of years, and during
that time exercised only casual acts Of
ownership at long intervals, and during
that time no actual work was done toward
working or developing the mine, either
upon or in proximity to the claims, and
that the defendants finding the ground
apparently abandoned, entered upon aud
located the same in pursuance with the
mining laws of the district and the laws
of Congress, and have continued to COM
ply with said laws, and having in good
faith, reasonably believing said ground
to be abandoned, expended large sums of
money in developing said mines, then
you are authorized to find the fact Of
abandonment"


This is perfectly just and should be re-
by all miners.


The Judge also said "The failure of
a miner, on the public land of the United
States to do the amount of work or spend
the amount Of money upon his calm, re-
quired by the local rules within n time
on pain of forfeiture will not of
itself take away his mining right. but the
ground must be duly relocated in
lawful mining district, and with the prop
or recorder thereof (when record is re-
quired by law before his right can be
taken away for such failure and if he
begins to do the work or eXpends the
money required before his ground is 50
relocated, his preceding failure in either
respect is cured. Thejury are instructed
that where party relies upon mining
rights acquired by mere occupancy, pos
session, appropriation and work, such
rights continue SO long only as the claim
ant continues the enjoyment or shows an
to continue it. Such party may
lose his rights by an abandonment of
them II he indicates an intention when he
the enjoyment Of them never
to resume it.


The ceasing to enjoy mining rights ac-
quired by mere occupancy and approp"i-
alton, whether depending upon actual
prior possession or compliance with min
ing customs, will destroy the rights, pro-
vided the discontinuance be absolute and
decisive and unaccompanied with any in
tention to resume them within reason
able length Of time.


When IL party rellnquiShes his posses
sion of IL mining claim with no intention
TO resume the possession or to work the
mine in good faith, or to subject the same
90 appropriate uses, but lies by and sut-
icrs the premises To become apparently
vacant, disused and abandoned, and so
induces Others to appropriate the same in
the reasonable belief that the same are
and subject to appropriation,
and then intending only in the event that
such mine is shown to be valuable by the
la Dor and expenditure Of such subsequent
appropriation, to assert claim thereto,
and endeavor to obtain possession thereof
and others to appropriate and develop
such mine in the reasonable belief that it


is vacant and unclaimed, induced thereto
by acts of prior claimants, such prior
claimants will be held to have abandoned
the same. If the jury find from the evil
lence that the plaintiff or his predecessors
had forfeited their rights to. the mining
ground sued for, and that after such for