WALLS.

Defined.—In a contact vein the roof or hanging wall is the plane of the contact above; the floor or foot wall is the plane of the contact below. In fissure veins the walls are the plane of demarcation between the country and the gangue.

Relation to the Country.—It should seem almost self-evident that the nature of the wall must depend upon the nature of the country rock and the nature of the material which it encloses. Between certain rocks the plane of separation would be distinct and traceable; between other rocks a diffusion of the oxides and minerals of the enclosed material through the adjoining country, would obliterate more or less all trace of the original plane of division. Where this plane of division is manifest to the eye there is what miners call a wall-where it has become obliterated they say there is no wall. It is therefore manifest that the fact of the absence of one or both walls, is, in itself alone, no proof of the non-existence of a vein, they being a mere accidental circumstance. And it has been so decided in the Lime Lode case, 116 U. S. 530, and in the Durant case, 29 Fed. 354. In the former decision, after defining what constitutes a lode as "a body of mineral or mineral-bearing rock within defined boundaries," MILLER J. adds: "In the existence of such body and to the extent of it, boundaries are implied." In the latter case, in such language as would be used by a lawyer thoroughly familiar with the subject matter, HALLETT J. says: "It is true that a lode must have boundaries, but there seems to be no reason for saying that they must be such as can be seen."

Broken Ground — Slips — Natural Cleavage.—It is also evident that subsequent disturbance of the vein matter would tend to destroy the continuity of the wall; and in many classes of rock the natural cleavage is such as often to be mistaken for and followed as a wall. In such ground a very little manipulation may be made to show an apparent wall where none, in fact, exists.

Disappearance of Wall.-It is nevertheless true that where a wall has shown itself for some distance and disappears-that is an important item to be considered where the further continuity of the vein is made doubtful by reason of the simultaneous disappearance of the mineral and an apparent change in the rock which is being followed. See page 39.

Wall or Side of Working.-It is also to be observed that the term "wall" is often used with reference to the actual side of a drift, shaft or other working without reference to its association with the vein, and finding mineral by "cutting through the wall" is spoken of as if it implied no contradiction of terms.

SPURS.

The word spurs is not found in any of the Acts of Congress nor in the patents issued under them. It is a dangerous term, because its meaning is relative, not definite. That which, when first discovered, may be called a spur, may prove to be a better developed vein than the lode from which it strikes off.

But the term found its way into the Colorado Territorial Act of 1866, and is seen in most records; when properly applied it signifies a feeder to, or offshoot from, a lode. As such it is part and parcel of the lode, at least as far as the side lines of the claim, and if it extended much further, it could hardly be called a spur.

A spur is defined (Bainbridge, p. 2, note,) as 'A lateral branch from the main lead, not returning to it, but losing itself in the surrounding soil."

A discovery shaft upon a spur ought not to hold against a discovery upon a lode, because a spur, properly so-called, is not supposed to show the statutory "well-defined crevice."

Though called a spur (which word is apt to be used as a slurring term) it is in law a lode upon which a valid title may be founded if it do in fact show such "well-defined crevice."

Where repeated locations have been made upon a mineral vein it is too late to call it a spur, especially where the law fixes no limit to the size of the vein which may be located, nor admits comparison of different size between conflicting locations.-Carson City Co. v. North Star Co. 73 Fed. 601.

When the discovery or existence of a lode is in contention, its size, strength, continuity and other like incidents are questions of fact to be found by the jury. -Blue Bird Co. v. Largey, 49 Fed. 289; Book v. Justice Co. 58 Fed. 106.

Ore bodies formed off from the fissure do not form separate veins.-Tombstone M. Co. v. Way Up Co. 1 Ariz. 426.

ANGLES AND VARIATIONS.

Use in Statutes and Conveyancing. In Section 4, A. C. 1866, the words "angles and variations" were used, and under that Act a lode was patented with its "angles and variations." They are neither law terms nor technical mining expressions, but are supposed to cover the digressions of a lode from a straight line, and might be extended to "faults." In arguing the important question arising upon patents under the old law when the vein left the side lines, these words

were strongly urged as indicating the intention to pass the vein as the essential grant of the patent. These words, or like terms, are in common use in the phraseology of mining deeds (Bullion Co. v. Cræsus Co. 5 M. R. 257) but are not words of essential description.

Irregular Surveys with Unnecessary Angles.—A lode may and should be surveyed to cover all its angles. But acute angles such as were attempted in the Stone Lode, leading to fantastic figures, widely different from the parallelogram intended in the Act of Congress, even if they have two parallel courses which they call end lines, run a risk of being ruled out of any right to claim beyond their side lines. In other respects they may be wholly valid if the end lines are regular and the statutory width and length are not exceeded.-Elgin Co. v. Iron Silver Co. 4 McCrary, 281; 118 U. S. 200.

Whether the presumption allowed in ordinary cases (Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 582) that the survey covers the vein would be indulged to a claim which has acute angles may be doubted. Such presumption is merely to fix the party on whom is the burden of proof, and on an angled claim ought to yield to very slight evidence.

Angles to Allow for Slope.-But where the lode has a pitch and is located on rising ground, especially where it crosses the saddle of a mountain or passes through a deep gulch, an angle or angles ought sometimes to be made, the direction of which will depend upon the dip of the lode, whether into or out of the mountain, and the extent of which will depend upon the degree dip of the lode. Such allowances are not called for where the location is on level ground nor even on rising ground if the lode runs directly up and down hill; but are essential under conditions familiar to surveyors and to experienced prospectors, in order to keep the apex fairly between the side lines. See page 157.

DRAINAGE.

Legislative Control.-Sec. 3.-The General Assembly may make such regulations, from time to time, as may be necessary for the proper equitable drainage of mines.-Colo. Const. Art. XVI.

Under the above authorization sections 3172-3180, of Mills' Annotated Statutes, attempt to regulate this subject. Such State control is also recognized in section 2338 of the United States Statutes.

But the subject itself is one of inherent difficulty. The Act seeks to provide that where one mine drains another, the mine thus benefited shall pay its proportion of the cost of drainage. Where a tunnel or lower adit drains another mine, it is doubtful whether such Acts have any application, as such drainage is only incidental.-Baird v. Williamson, 4 M. R. 368; Townsend v. Peasley, 2 M. R. 612. But where one mine hoists the water of another a natural equity is more apparent, and statutes in aid of contribution, even giving a royalty to the draining mine, have been enforced.—Ahren v. Dubuque Co. 5 M. R. 144.

Coal Mines.-Where in case of veins or deposits of the class represented by coal beds, one mine lies under the dip of another mine at a higher level, it is under servitude to the water flow of the mine above.-Philadelphia Co. v. Taylor, 5 M. R. 133.

Servitude of the Lower.-In lode mines the same rule applies that the lower workings must stand the water from the higher pits, subject to such regulations as the Drainage Act supplies, where such an Act exists and its provisions can be enforced; and the upper mine cannot wantonly cast its water on the lower.-Locust Co. v. Gorrell, 5 M. R. 129. The same rule applies to quarries. - Ulmer v. Farnsworth, 15 Atl. 65.