IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

{./

f/j ^^ z-^' '% M '

1.0

I.I

S IIIM

1.8

1.25 1.4

1.6

<« 6" —

►

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14S80

(716) 872-4503

^9)

^■^ '\

^1?

■fTC

fh'

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

/I Coloured covers/
^ Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagAe

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou peiiicuide

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other thar ^lue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

r~7| Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion

UlJ along interior margin/

La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int6rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte.
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas At6 filmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires:

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag6es

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcolories, tachet^es ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality inigaie de i'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppi^mentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages tMalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont M filmies A nouveau de fa^on A
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

a4X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here hei been reproduced thenks
to the generosity of:

Library Division

Provi<icial Archives of British Columbia ,

L'exempleire film* fut reproduit grAce A la
ginArosit* de:

Library Division

Provincial Archives of British Columbia

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contrct specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet* de l'exempleire film*, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la derniAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
film6s A des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film* A partir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les dia^jrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.

tlLJAiM/djMicitor, -

43 GovernmentiStreet,
VICTORIA, -

B 1*^ >i V

+.■. '

5S4

7 vw^-^-vv-cctoC <7v> ' Al^ 3 u \ <? Q C

fW Cx( CA.\ c/ CiA/^ I ^ y ^(j

n ■■

^ M,

THE PARIS BELLE MINE.

The Cliief Justice has given his writ-
ten judgment in Nelson and Fort Shep-
pard Railway Co., v. Jerry et al. This
decision is of great importance to min-
ing men especially, dealiiig as it does
with the question of locating mineral
lands in the province and what it is that
constitutes a mineral claim. The judg-
ment is as follows:

Neuson a Fort Sheppabd Railway
Co. vs!. Jekky et al. — The plaintiff
company, incorporated by special pro-
vincial act (1891, cap. 58), to construct,
and which has constructed, a railway
from a point near the town of Nelson to
a point near Fort Sheppard, British Col-
umbia, which work was declared by com-
petent authority to be a railway for the
general benefit of Canada, received a
grant of public land in aid of its railway,
and in this action sues for possession of
certain lands comprised within its grant
to which the defendants claim title un-
der locations as mineral claims alleged
to have l)een made on the 17th June,
1892, by E. J. Noel, and on the 3rd Janu-
ary, 1895, by the defendant Jerry,
the benefit of both of which locations
has passed to the defendants, the Paris
Belle Mining Company.

The plaintiff's title proceeded upon
chap. .38, 56 Vic. (.1892), which author-
ized the government to grant lands in
the Ellectoral district of West Kootenay,
not exceeding 10,240 acres for each mile
of railway constructed, and that upon
the filing and giving by the company of
certain plans and securities tiiere should
be reserved from pre-emption and sale a
tract of land on each side of the line of
the proposed railway. Accordingly, on
the 12th August, 1892, a reservation was
made of a tract sixteen (16) miles in
width on each side of a line running
from the northeast corner of lot 97, group
1, to the international boundary line. It

is not disputed that the conditions as to
plans and security were complied with.
The subsidy act provided for the selec-
tion and projection upon a plan to be
filed by tlie company of alternate
blocks of an area of six miles,
and that as the work of construc-
tion proceeded the government might
issuegrants of lands within the alternate
blocks. On the 23rd March, 1893, the
plaintifftj filed a plan showing the pro-
jection of alternate blocks, among which
was exhibited block 12, containing a
tract of land commencing at the boun-
dary line of the province , and extending
northwards and includi ig the lands in
question in this action.

The evidence shows that the actual
survey on the grounds was begun on the
24th September, 1894, and finished on
29th November, 1894, and field notes
were deposited in the land department
on the 10th January, 1895. In pur-
suance of such selection the Crown, on
the 8th March, 1895, granted to the com-
pany what is now known and described
as section 35, township 9a, comprising
the f:>rmer block 12 as defined on the
plan filed on the 23rd March, 1893.
Such grant excepts all mineral claims
held prior to the said 23rd March, 1893.
The Subsidy act declares that the com-
pany shall be entitled only to unoc-
cupied Crown land, and that to makeup
for any area within any of the blocks of
land to be selected by the company
which shall, before their selection, have
been alienated by the Crown or held by
pre-emption or lease, or as mineral
claims, the company shall receive
similar areas, of ^'ot less than one mile
squa*"^, in other parts of the district.
The leslion in this action is, whether
tTie defendants have a title paramount
to t..at of the plaintiffs over the lands
covered by the alleged mineral loca-

973 79

Pacific N. W. History Dept.

PROVINCIAU L.BRA "/
VICTORIA, 0. G,

tions or either of them, whether, in
fact, they are to be deemed excepted
from the plaintiff's errant. Tlie ciaiuia
were located and recorded, the one aa
the "Zenitli," and the other aa the
"Paris Belle." The location of the
"Zenith," which, accordinjj; to the
evidence, waa made on the 16th
Jnne, 1892, occupied most of the
land which was afterwards staked as
the " Paris Belle." The place where
the present shaft of the "Paris Belie"
is sunk is at the point where Noel did
part of his a-ssessment work on the
"Zenith," Section 10 ot the Mineral
Act provides that in the event of a free
miner entering upon lands already oc-
cupied, for other than mining purposes,
he shall, previous to entry, give
adequate security to the satisfaction of
the Gold Commissioner, and after entry
shall make compensation foi any loss or
damage which may be caused by reason
of such entry. It is admitted that in
this case no security was given, or com-
pensation paid or tendered.

The plaintiffs contend that at the
time of the " Paris Belle " location the
land was already occupied by them for
other than mining purposes, and was
therefore not subject to location as a
mineral claim, except under conditions
which it was admitted were not com-
plied with; in support of which con-
tention the uncontradicted evidence of
Edward J. Roberts proved the situa-
tion of the claim in Block 12, adjoining
the town of Rossland on the northeast;
that the railway company had upon
Block 12 a Hue of road and the station of
Wanita ; that the road was located in
1892 and was finished in 189.S, and that
the station of Wanita was built in May
or June, 1893. It \\as burne<l down or
destroyed, and a new station, in the
same pla«'e, constructed in the fall of
1893, and the railway company has occu-
pied tliese stations from the time of their
building until now, and has operated
the railway since it w.i8 constructed.
The records, both of the " Zenith " and
the " Paris Belle," were further im-
peached, on the ground that no vein or
lode of mineral had been discovered,
that no mineral in place had been dia-
coveried, arid that, therefore, the land
was incapable of being located as a min-
eral claim.

To the defendants' contention that
the "Zenith" location existed at and
prior tu the 23 d of March, 1893, the
plaintiffd replied that the " Zenith " wan
never properly located, or staked,
represented or worked, but was aban-
doned by Noel in 1892, and had
cijnsecniently lapsed and become again
waste lands of the Crown, Upon the
evitlence the plea of abandooment by
Noel of the " Zenith " seems clearly
estal)li8hed. He located the land in
parnerehip with Joseph Villendre, al-
though he recorded in his own name
only. He tells us that three or four
months after the location he did some
work starting a shaft. The work was of
about the value of fSO. His partner was
supposed to do his share of the aseese-
ment work but did not do so, and con-
sequently he. Noel himself, did no
more. Noel says, " 1 remonstrated with
him for not doing his part of the aQsess-
ment work, and he said he did not think
he would do his portion ; and when he
said he was not going to do his work I
quit. I never did any more assessment
work on the " Zenith." There is noth-
ing in the ev'denceat variance with the
testimony of Noel, nor anythingto show
that any further work was done upon
that location.

The "Zenith" claim, therefore, hav-l]
ing been abandoned, lamof opinio. i that
immediately upon abandonment it re-
verted to and became the property of the
Crown (Regina v. Demers, 22 8. C. R.
482), and as such came within the plan I
iiled by the plaintiffs on the 23rd of I
March, 1893, as part of block 12, which
block was afterwards adopteil as a divi-
sion of the land bv the government, and
conveyed to the plaintiffs in one lot by
one conveyance by the government.

It is established upon the evidence
that before any other attempt at location
of a mineral claim within block 12, the
pluintiff's railway was constructed and
the station of Wanita built and rebuilt
thereon. The block therefore became
lawfully occupied, as to portion of it at
least, for other than mining purposes,
the evidence showinsr that the line was
located in 1892 and" finished in 1893.
The plaintiff company being then
in actual, visible, occupation of the block
was in point of law, and, following
well recognized legal authorities, to be

deemed in constinclive occupation of
all of if. In Davis vs. C. F. R., 12 Onf.
Rep. 724, it was lieM than •'occupied
lands" under the Railway Ant, 4t) Vie,
Oh. 24 (D), denote lands adjoining a
railway and actually or constructively
occupied up to the line of the railway
by reason of actual occupation of some
part of the section or lot by the person
who owns it or is entitled to the posses-
sion of the whole. In other words, ac-
tual occupation of a part is deemed to
be actual occupation of the whole. In
Little vs. McGinnes, 7 Maine, 176, cited
with approval in Harris vs. Mudic, 7
Ont., App. Rep. 429, the court remarks:
" The deed may not convey the legal es-
" tate. Still the possession of a part of
"the land described in it . . . may
" be conaidered as a possession of the
" whole, and as a disseisin of the true
" owner, and equivalent to an actual
"and exclusive possession of the whole
" tract, unless controlled by other pos-
" session." In Robertson vs. Daley, 11
Ont. Rep. 352 P., the owner of certain
land in 1811, sold it to D , who went
into possession and occupied until 1827
or 1828, when he was turned out by the
sheriff under legal proceedings taken by
Dufait, who was i3ut in possession and
so remained until 1854, when he con-
veyed to O., through whom the plaintiff
claimed. D's actual possession had been
only of about 10 acres. Held that D's
possession was of the whole land, and
that he could not be treated as a squat-
ter so as to enable him to acquire a title
to the 10 acres actually occupied. In
Hereron vs. Christian, 4 B. C. Rep. 246,
I upheld the same principle.

It follows, therefore, that the plaint-
iffs on and after the construction of their
railway and station, lawfully occupied
block 12 for other than mining purposes,
and, such being the case, a mineral
claim could be acquired thereon only un-
der Section 10 of the Act which provides
that whilst the miner may enter upon
all lands, the right whereon to so enter,
prospect and mine shall liave been re-
served to the Crown and its licensees,
(and such right is reserved in respect of
the Nelson and Fort Sheppard grant by
section 8 of 65 Vict., chap. 38), yet in
making entry upon lands already law-
fully occupied for other than mining
purposes, the free miner, previous to

entry, shall give adequate security to
the satisfaction of the Gold Commission-
er for loss or damage, and after entry
shall make compensation to the owner
or occupant. Compliance with these
conditions is, I think, imperative upon
the miner seeking to locale a mineral
claim upon land occupied for other than
mining purposes, as I have held Block
12 to have been and that failure to ob-
serve .hem vitiates the location. •

By section 34 of the act the interest of
a free miner in his claim is to be deemed
a chattel interest, equivalent to a lease
for a year, and so on, "subject to the
performance and observance of all Lhe
terms and conditions of this act." In
Maxwell on Statutes, 3rd edition, page
531, the distinction is drawn, as demon-
strated by «■ Toerous authorities, be-
tween cases w.iere the prescriptions of
an act affect the performance of a duty
and where they relate to a privilege or
power: " Where powers or rights are
granted with a direction that certain
regulartions or formalities shall be com-
plied with, it seems neither unjust nor
inconvenient to exact a rigorous observ-
ance of them as essential to the acquisi-
of the right or authority conferred."
I think there can be no ques-
tion that the rights and privileges con-
ferred upon free miners in this province
come under this head, and that, as re-
marked in Maxwell, at page 521, " tlie
regulations, forms and con-'itions pre-
scribed "—for the acquisition of the
miners' rights and privileges— "are im-
perative in the sense that the non-ob-
servance of any of them is fatal." See
also Corporation of Parkdale vs?. West,
L. R. 12 App. Cas., 613. In Belk vs.
Meagher, 104 U. S., 284, Chief Justice
Waite remarks : " The right of location
upon the mineral lands of the United
States is a privilege granted by congress,
but it can only l)e exercised within the
limits prescribed by the grant." Upon
the ground, therefore, of failure to ob-
serve the conditions of section 10, I am
of opinion that the defendant's title
fails.

I am also of opinion that the plaintiff's
title must prevail upon the further
ground that no vein or lode of mijLuwAl
had been discovered, and that no juirw
eral in place had been diicovered to
justify the location.

The act defines the word " mine " to
inean any land in which any vein or
lode or rock in place shuil be mined for
gold or other minerals, precious or base,
except coul, and " mineral " to mean all
valuable deposits of gold, silver, etc.
*' Rock In place " is defined to be ail
rock in place bearing; valuable deposits
of gold, cinnabar, lead, copper, iron, «.r
other minerals usually uiineci, except
coal; or, in other woril^, that " rock in
/place " is prar.tically synonymous with a
/j" vein " or " lo(ie," and, as stated by the
;'witne8s Kelly, meang, I think, a sub-
stance confined "Betw^een some definite
walls or boundaries. Where, then, you
have this substance so located, and
bearing valuable deposits of gold or
mineral, you have '* rock in place," or
a " vein " or "lode " within the mean-
ing of the act. It does not, I think,
mean mere mineralized roi-k wherever
you may find it, as sugtj^ested by some of
the witnesses. Mr. Croiian, for instance,
- says: "I call it mineral in place if it is
in' rock. If I was to find it in
earth or soil where apparently
it had been moved, it would not be
"mineral in place." He seems to think
that wherever you find mineral in the
country rock you have " rock in place."
I do not think he is right. Taking the
statutory definition of a " mine," " min-
eral," " rock in place," reading tiiem
together they are, I think, intended to
refer to a vein or lode (found in rock)
carrying valuable deposits of mineral.
The object of this act was, I think, to
give the miner the right to acquire a
vein or lode so found, and sufficient ad-
joining land to work it. If he has dis-
covered no such vein or lode he acquires
no right to anything. All the sections
of the act must be read in the light of
the interpretation clauses, and, so read,
seem to point to the right to locate a
vein and use the land for the purpose of
mining it, and for no other purpose.
Read particulaily sections 10, 14, 20, and
especially section 26, " No free miner
shall be entitled to hold more than one
mineral claim on the same vein or lode
except by purctiase," but may hold by
location upon any separate vein or lode.
Section 30, "Should any free miner
locate more than one mineral claim on
the same vein or lode all locations, ex-
cepting the location and record of his

first claim on such vein or lode shall be
void." Tlien section 30 provides that be-
fore he can obtain a crown grant the
miner has to show that he has found a
vein or lode within the limits of hia
claim, ail implying the same thing,
viz: tiiat to have' a location there must
be a vein or lode — or rock in place— and
under the act of 1895, the spirit of the
law, conspicuous throughout all the leg-
islation is further demonstrated by re-
quiring that before the mmer can locate
at all he must tile a declaration showing
his discovery of a vein or lode. In other
words, he can have nothing under the
act except a vein or lode and the pre-
8cril)ed aica of land to work it.

The meaning of our act in tiiis respect
seems much the same as the law
of the United States. Section 2,320
of the revised statutes of the United
States enacts: "Mining claims upon
veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in
place hearing gold, silver, cinnabar, etc.,
may be located, and the definition there
of a vein or lode as interpreted by the
courts is the same as I have expressed it
here. In Eureka Mining Co. vs. Rich-
mond, Morrison's Mining Reports, Vol.
9, page 582, argued in the Supreme
court of the United States, Mr. Justice
Field, after elaborate argument, and
with the advantage of the best of expert
and scientific skill, defines the distin-
guishing characteristics of a vein or lode,
as the location of a vein between well
defined boundaries, containing a com-
bination of mineral matter which has
been thrown up or generally precipitated
in solution against the walls ot the cavity
by the action of water circulating in the
original fissure of the earth's surface.

In Wheeler vs. Smith, 32 Pacific Rep.,
785, it is !ai<l down: " The mineral land
laws of the United States were enacted
for the purposes of securing the miners
upon the public lands the title to min-
eral discovered by them, and a sufiicient
quantity of the land in which mineral is
discovered as will enable them to prose-
cute the work of development and pro-
duction successfully. Mines, as known
to those laws embrace nothing but de-
posits of valuable mineral ores, and do
not include mere masses of non-mineral-
ized rock whether rock in place or scat-
tered about through the soil." Bee also
Consolidated Gold Mining Co. vs. Cham-

pion, 03 Fed, Rep. 544; Harrington vs.
Chambers 1 Pac. Rep., 375; J'rhart vs.
Boiiro, 113 U.S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 527.
In Davis v. Webbold, 139 TJ. S., it was
held that the exemptions of 'mineral
lands from pre-emption and settlement
and for pnbliu purposes do not exclude
all lamia in which mineral may be
found, but only those where the mineral
is in suiicient quantity to add to their
richness and to justify expenditure for
its extraction, and known to be so at
the date of the grant; and Field, J., re-
marks: "There nro vast tracts of coun-
try in the mining states which contain
precious metals in emdll quantities, but
not to a sufficient e;:tent to justify the
expense of their exploitation. It is not
to such lands that the term ' mineral '
applies — citing Alford v. Barnum, 45
Cal. 482; and Merrill v. Dixon, 15 Nev.
401; Cowell v. Lammers, 10 Saw. 240,
257 ; TJ. S. v. Reed, 12 Saw. 99, 104— and
many other cases, showing that the ex-
pression ' mineral lands,' means only
lands which are valuable for mineral
purposes, that is, which will pay to
work, and not lands in which ou may
find ' a trace ' of mineral (as described
by some of the witnesses in this case)
and sometimes more, but which do iiot
demonstrate themselves to be worth
working." As remarked in Alford v.
Barnham, TO Morrison's mining reports,
422: " The meie fact that portions of the
land contained particles of gold and
veins of gold bearing quartz roc!'', would
not necessarily impress it with the
character of mineral bearing land. It
must, at least, be shown that the land
contains metals in quantities sufficient
to render it available and valuable for
mining purposes."

The authorities above quoted, and"
many others which could be cited to
similar purport, seem precisely to til
the evidence in this case, of which there
is but little conflict. Mr. Kelly, one of
the plaintiffs' witnesses, tells us that the
mineral veins in the vicinity of the Paris
Belle appear to be divided into
a belt; a belt of barren rock, and another
belt of veins; that these veins follow a
general trend in one direction. For in-
stance, the most valuable mines so far
discovered and worked, the "War
Eagle," " Josie," ''Le Roi," and "Cen-
tre Star " appear to have a general dir-

ection to a certain point indicated by
the "Nickel Plate" where they stop,
and to the south of \vliiuh you tind no
mineral vein until you get across the
country, and stait on the rise on the
other side of the stream, when you again
tind what appears to be another belt of
veins running in the same direction,
and having all the characteristics of the
belt of veins traced on the other ei<le.
That between those two bells we have a
large section of dlorite or country rock,
which is similar in character to the
material which forms the walls of (he
veins wherediscovered. Thecountry rock
carries a certain amount of iron, butTiot
in quantities which would make it valua-
ble* for mining purposes, but the par-
ticles of iron do not of themselves indi-
cate the proximity of a vein.

Speaking of the "Paris Belle," with
which he is quite familiar, Mr. Kelly
savs that the rock in that shaft is the
same ordinary diorite or country rock
which composes this intermediate belt;
that in the little geams or counter-
checks in the rock, white iron is to be
found, and sometimes there may be gold
in some of them ; but not as indicating
a vein but being merely the ordinary
mineralization which covers the entire
country. To the same eflfect is the evi-
dence of Mr. Funiell. Mr. Noel origin-
ally located the property on the theory
that wherever you found a contact be-
tween two classes of rock you would find
a vein, but finding no vein in this case
lie abandoned the claim as valueless.
The defendants' witness, Cronan, admits
that there is no wall, he says that the
rock bearing mineral of the " Paris
Belle " is country rock, but he says also
thatdiorite, or country rock, is the miner-
alized rock of the " Paris Belle." He says
he found mineral in place on the " Paris
Belle " ; but when asked what is " min-
eral in place" he defines it merely as
" mineral in rock" as distinguished
from " mineral in clay " or any other
formation What he means, then, when
he tells us that he found "rock in
place " in the " Paris Belle " is merely
this, that he found rock with mineral or
a tra(!e of mineral in it, which nobody
doubts that he did, or that, in fact, any-
one could find the same thing to a
greater or less extent in the country
rock. But that is very, far from saying

took samples of tliis " rock in place " i
he calls it — " mineralized rock " as it ;

Ihat he found " rock in place " accord-
ing to its accurate definition, which
means a vein, something between wall^.

Mr. Cronan further tells us that he

as
at

most was — and found it to contain all
the way " from a trace up to $2 a ton in
value." No one doubts this; the eam^
thing might be said of any of the coun-
try rock in ihe vicinity, and in some
cases it would not be surprising to find it
going as high ad ^9.50, as another of the
witnesses said ; or as high as
$12, which was Mr. Burke's assay.
But to discover such mineralized rock
is very far from saying xhat you have
found a lode or vein; something upon
which you could with advantage spend
money in development.

Mr. Burke is asked, in reference to
the *' Paris Belle," " Is there a vein on
it? — mineral in place? " To which he
answers ** I think so"; and there his
examanant m chief leaves him. But
upon cross-examination he says he found
neither foot wall nor hanging wall ; he
found wliat he calls a vein, sunk evi-
dently between two wails, but could not
find either of the walls, because tne
vein is lursjer than the shaft and sunk in
vein. Asked whether, by sinking fur-
ther, he thinks a vein between walls
could be found, he says: '* That I urn not
prepared to say ; that is drawing a conclu-
sion that might be borne out in work and
might not " ; and he savs that he has no
means of saying whether the so-called
" vein " is valuable or not, not having
examined it. Mr. Thompson says this
is a prospect, not a mine, and that there
are about two thousand prospects lo-
cated in the district. He does' not un-
dertake to say there is a vein, and can
say nothing about the appearance of the
surface when the location was made ;
and Mr. Hansy's evidence throws no
further light on the case, so far as in-
dicating the discovery of a vein.
'' Upon this evidence I can come to but
the one conclusion, that there was no
discovery of anything beyond the coun-
try rock — seamed and mineralized, al-
though that doubtless here and there is
— with a trace to $9 or bo in various
places. All that the defendants have
shown me to have been discovered on
the •' Paris Belle " is a similar formation

to that described and condemned in the
followinu extract from Morrison's Min-
ing Rights, page 10',5: *' Where the
opinions.say thai; i! may be rich or poor,
they refer to the well known fact that
true veins for long distances are often
quite bar»en. But it does not follow
tliat every seam of rock which will as-
say is necessarily any vein at all ; for
there do exist seams which carry ft little
mineral and yet are not veins within the
geologi(!al or legal definition. The min-
eralization in such cases, in some of
them at least, is caused by infiltration cf
ore from a true vein, or deposit along
some plane of cleavage, or along the
plane between two formations, or
through mere mechanical cracks in the
rock ; and all their mineral is only pre-
cipitated or crystalized seepage from
the lode or deposit above. Such bastard
veins have just enough resemblance to
true veins to be used as a pretext of
title against neighboring locations on
the legitimate vein. They are generally
lacking in walls, continuity, and
in the normal uniformity of the
true vein, and yet may have
slips which are practically indis-
tinguislied from vvallfl, and have some
tliscolored matter and particles of ore,
just enough to be dangerously similar to
what is of value, only as it is unlike such
things."

But, it has been urged, it is not com-
petent for the plaintiffs, in these pro-
ceedings, to assail the validitv of the
"Paris Belle" location as a mineral
claim because the defendants have se-
cured a certificate of improvements
which of itself affords conclusive pvduT—
(1892, Cap. 32, S. 13., 1894, Cap. 82, S. 5.)
- of the location of a lode or vein, and
in all other respects concludes the title.
Such certificate was obtained after due
advertisement, und the plaintiffs might
have filed an adveree claim against the
grant of such certificate if they had de-
sired to contest the defendants' right to
receive it; but, not having done so, th*
matter is now res judicata, under 1892,
Cap. 32, S. 14, which enacts that no ad-
verse claim shall be filed after a period
(which has now expired) and, ** in de-
fault of such filing, no objection to the
issue of a certificate of improvements
shall be permitted to be heard in any
court, nor shall the validity of such cer-

tillcate wlien issued bo iinpeanlied on
any Kroniul oxct'pt that of fiaii<l,"

This reasoiiinjf vvuiiM he vt'iy power-
ful if the phiiiuitfH were htyiiit? claim to
the minerals (if any) to he found in the
*' Paris Uelle " location ; hut this tliey
are not doing, and cannot do under (heir
subsidy act. Their ownership, f the
surface ia expressly subject to iht ) '«rht
of the free miner to acquire cluimH in
accordance with the provisioui of the
law. Tiie Mineral stct pres'' • le-i a ,/ro-
'cedure to be followed, as bet^vean rival
■ claimants to mineral ground and the
I minerals there'll, and I take it thiit as
between such parties the [)ro''edure
adopted by the act must bo rij;i(lly fol-
lowed, and, in a proper case, is exclu-
sive. But this is n ot a caee of that
kind. This is a claim to eject
the defendants from the surface, which

Erima facie, under the crown grant,
elongs to the iilaintifTs, and certainly
does so unless the defendants can brin^
themselves within the exception as the
owners of a niineral claim lield as such
prior to the 23rd March, 1893. This, of
course, means lawfully held anterior to
that date, and tlieii held, not abandoned.
^There is nothing in the mineral act
// which I can discern dealing with any-
thing else than mineral claims
and mineral or mining rights
arising under the statutes relat-
ing to mining. But here the plain-
tiffs make no claim to the mineral, as
mineral ; they are not, so far as appears,
free miners themselves; they assert no
rights upon which a free miner could
base a contention. We must look to the
scope ot t)ie act and not include witiiin
its purview cases r hich manilVslly w» re
not intended to be included by the legis-
lature.

In Railton vs. Wood, L. li. lO, Appeal
Cases, 36(j, Lord Selborne says: "On
principle it is certainly desirable in con-
struing a statute, if it be possible to
avoid extending it to collateral effects
and consequences beyond the scope of
the general object and policy of the
statute itself, and injurious to third par-
ties with 'vhose interests the statute
need not, and does not, profess to di-
rectly deal." The very summary and
unusual provisions ot parts of the min-
eral act demonstrate the necessity of
confining its operations within its scope.

The owner of land knows that liis title to
the BUI face, at least, (lannot be interfered
with except by some uerson uiving him
clear an<t distinct notice of his adverse
title. If he be trespassed upon, he has
the period prescribed by the statute of
limitations applicable to the cane to
bring his action of MespaHS. lie owns
the land as his own to him, and
his heirs forever. With the hold-
er of a mineral or mining claim
the case is widely ddlerent. He ludds
the land for a special purpose only — that
of exercising the statutable privilege of
extracting the precious metal.
There is nothing, then, unreasonable in
the law, which confers the priviletje,
also exacting vigilance as one of the
coiiditions upon which that privilege
shall be enjoyed. Hence it imposes the
obligation of watching for notices (not
to be served personally or in the usual
course, but by publication in the Gazette
and by posting upon the ground), under
which claims may at any time be made -
by unheard of parties, and then within
thirty days after such notices im-
poses the further obligation of filing
what are termed adverse claims and the"" ,
bringing of legal proceedings. As before
remarked, these conditions and obliga-
tions may be reasonable enough when
imposed upon the free miner who holds
nothing but a privilege upon the min-
erals con feried by the Act; but, to im-
pose them upon a man who already
hods prima facie title to the surface of > i
the property, not for mining, but it may \
be, as in this case it is, for altogether '
different purposes, appears to me con-
trary to reason and justice, and
not to be implied in the
absence of clear and unequivocal
statutory declaration. To carry such a
coiTfenlion to its full extent, the owner
of an orchard or of ornamental timber
lands might be deprived of his property
simply because he had failed to watch
the Gazette for notices of mining claims,
of which he had never so much as
thought. We have to avoid placing a
construction upon a statute which is
repugnant to reason and ordinary jus-
tice, and as remarked by Lord Coleridge
in Regina vs. Clarence, L. R., 22 Q. B.
D., 66: '* In the construction of a stat-
ute, if the apparent logical construction
of its language leads to results which it

i, ^..possible to beUeve that U.osejho

f rS or those ;;'ho Pa«8«^^hich one's
contemplated, and lom

judgment recoilH^theiei ^^ ^^^ con-

iood reason ^9^ ^^ S9 ^o such resa Us
Itraclion ^J^^^^ construction, of tlie

^«firTkJiofhSvS-|edmetot^^
orokhl vs. Baunheim, W- ^ ^^^^^^
^here it was heW/l^f J^ . „

applies for a F^f Lw and all the pro-
ner prescribed by ^^^^-1 are required
reedings are ^i*^ ,Th« United States,
by the^ Statutes of the ^mt^^^^

and no adverse cj'^l?'^. the around has
Jo and it appears ^hat tne ^ ^^ ^^^.
be^n surveyed and returne^^^^

veyor general to the ^°?^„ whether it s
mineral land, the ques^.^^^y gtab-

placer groun^^^^f „^en ^ litigation by
fished and \« ^^^ ffen ^^^.^
private parties eeeKi"g ^hing m that
Eeedings.. B'^t there is ^ ^g

decision n c^nfl'^'tXa There the <le-
whio.b guide me n ti^^s. ^^^^ ^^ ^

Tendant laid claim ^^o th.e^^^ ^

placer lo^-ation of for y ^^ ^j^^ ^^^.ee
{^he plaintiff, V „mS on the con-
acres being i«""''^i,.ee acres con-
tention that the ^^1'%^^,^ the de-
tained a 'o^e or l^]^. ^ location,
fendant claimed as a n ^^ between

Th« '^^^P"the Sous metals sought to
^Zlrl;^^^- tli^e^rraHntetde

character, out this is no

ti«<^- . therefore, 1 am of opinion ;

To sum up,thereiuic.

a mineral claim. location of

2. That at the Ume of the 10 ^^^
the "Paris Belle" on the d^^c ^^
1895, the land was occ f^.^.^^
plaintiffs for other u«a ^^^^y ^

poses, and that the^^s Belle" was for >,
location of the Par^s ^^^ ^.^nditions,,
TtrsS'pf e] cnu section K^^

o the Act, illegal and void. ^^ ,

3. That the location jaalso^^^^ had

the ground that rocK
not been discoyereU. i^intiffd to

4 That the failure of the pia ^^^^^

and record of the J'^J' jg-ry was illegal
claim by the tl\"t the defendants nor
and void, and that the ^m 1 ^^ ^^^

:S;of them are nethfit^^^^ holders
rlg'hts and pr vdeges o 35

of a rnmeral, claim P^^^^y ^ ^nct ,

township 9.. .^' ti,e lawful acquisition
and that subject to tne m g ^5 55

tn future of c'^^"^ V the plaintiffs are,
Victoria, chapter 3 , J- ^P ,,iued o

iTefore mentioned ;y,^i,?fffe ^ vail have

^r^arBelle l^o.^Z^-l -tained
tiffs are not shewn ^ as to

any, there w lU be ^J^.^, ^m recovei^
damages. The 1^1 ^^ ^^^^^ ,„ the

their copts ot suit,
usual way.

•v\

wr-" — TjT^-^

mm^^^t^mm^^mmmmmmm^

^p^«HRP

(Jm, rt^\^ tVjJU db^A/^ \^ jUmc^ a>v>. Vm^s:,

Sytfs^ kjh^ Mj^ji- ^. ... -ii... ..i.J U.Afc 'M)

r«N\ Vws, •"^^^'

<t3^.

'I'^^t^k dfcW^4„,.,^,)^.

**>A**L

»«

%1 -'V