Scoble

The action was brought to quiet title to two adjoining mining claims.

Plaintiffs had judgment and defendant appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant relocated the claims on January 1, 1905, and he contends that the annual labor required by law was not done on either of said claims by plaintiffs for the year 1904, and also that by virtue of his affidavits of newly discovered evidence a new trial should have been granted.

1. In the opening brief appellant inveighs caustically against the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses, asserting that it is entirely unworthy of credence, and insufficient to justify the finding of the court that the work was done in 1904. But the fact remains, as the transcript shows, that two witnesses, Heldman and Miller, testified that the two hundred dollars’ worth of work was done by them and one Curtis. They give the number of days that they were employed, the price per day of their labor, and they describe how and where the work was done. It is true that they do not entirely agree as to some of the details, and Heldman is less certain as to the exact time of the employment than Miller, hut it cannot be disputed that their…