Show RECENT MINING DECISIONS DECISION Si prepared for the mining review by judge E V higgins D F walker block mining claims organized districts re cording 1 under rev st TJ S see sec 2324 providing that the miners of each mining distich may make regulations regarding the record ing of claims etc and hills ann laws sec providing that when a mining district has haa been organ organized iced the claims therein shall be recorded claims in a locality not an organized district were not required to be recorded 2 in a suit to determine an adverse interest in certain mining claims where the evidence of plaintiffs witness who claimed to have maikel out the claims and upon whom bom plaintiffs right of recovery depended was contradictory and false at least in part a decree dismissing the action is proper payton et al v burns ore 69 pao pac rep other mining claims maybe may be properly used in a mining location to df designate the boundaries of the claim as it is a sufficient reference to natural objects and permanent monuments M ants to comply with the statute in that respect A party contesting the validity of a claim described by reference to other claims on the ground that the latter have no existence has the burden of proving such allegation the burden of proving each location is upon each claimant of the respective locations where one defends in such action and sets u up p claim of atle the court must pass upon the validity of his claims as well as those of the 0 one ne bringing t the action shattuck v cos tello sup ct arizona 68 pao pac rep tenants in dommon common assessment work relocation location re by co tenants where the issue was whether a mining claim had been forfeited owing to a failure to do the required amount of work on it in a certain year and it appears that the required amount of work was done that it did not appear that all the co owners did their share was immaterial when of work is done in a certain year on a mining claim belonging to co owners it is to be presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary cot that such work was done by the co owners or some of them when it appears that one of the co tenants of a mining claim shortly after the recovery of valuable rock in the neighborhood gave his brother who had never been on the claim a description there thereof of and the brother wrote out a notice of location and signed it whereupon the co owner relocated located re the claim in the name of the brother the finding that the entry and location in the name of the brother was a mere subterfuge to defraud the co tenants was warranted where one of several co tenants of a mining claim attempts to relocate same his act inures ingres to the benefit of his co tenants mere lapse of time does not dissolve the relationship of co tenants v johnson et al wash 70 pao pac rep |