Show TO PATENT A GROUP it seems that more recent explorations of the ruling of the general land office in regard to the amount of expenditure on a group of claims in order to patent them tends to modify former opinions on the subject the ori original inal ruling was that where a shaft cost 2500 was a sunk on a group of five claims it did not suf suffice flee but that in such case worth of work must be done on each claim if this were to be the established ruling mining men generally recognized its folly but it seems that in the case where the ruling was made the applicant sought to apply the work done dond on around ground for which united states patent had been issued in 1875 as the WO improvements on a lode claim of recent date and for which a separate application and entry had just been made there wasa was a time when the land office accepted such improvements upon patented ground for later locations as a sufficient lelent compliance w with ith the requirements that worth of labor or improvements prove ments must be expended to enable the owner to obtain united states patents but this practice only is affected by the new ruling it is stated by register frank D hobbs of salt lake city that where the work is done and improvements made upon one claim of a group the claims of the group consolidated and the whole group embraced in one entry and application for patent there is no change in in the practice and this work and improvements will hold the whole group this latter explanation will prove very satisfactory as the absurdity of the supposed ruling was palpable denver news the above clipping from the denver news was submitted by the mining review to register hobbs who stated that the first paragraph was in error as no ruling had ever been made that it was necessary to do in in work on every claim embraced in in a group in in order to secure united states patent to the same but that now as heretofore all ail the work could be confined to one shaft or tunnel on the group provided that the work so done tends to the development and benefit of the entire property in the first case in question and the decision concerning t which led to an erroneous impression and misunderstanding 1 the work for a group of five claims consisting of a shaft was done outside of the boundary lines of the group and the department held that a shaft or open cut made on ground outside of the property sought az to be patented could not apply however a tunnel started outside of the lines of a group and run towards or into the claim or group of claims for development and assessment purposes will be given the same consideration and credit as if it had been started and run within the holdi holdings nys of the claimant who has or is making application for patent and work can be done in this tunnel for the patenting of the entire group providing that the claims are conti contiguous gubus and the work so done is for tb the e advantage of the whole group this being the case the whole scare resolves itself into the one fact that a shaft sunk or an open cut made on ground outside of the claim or group of claims sought to be patented will not be recognized by the department in in the endeavor to make it apply as work done for the property in question |