Brahenberg

(after stating the facts as above).

But two assignments of error are relied upon in the briefs of counsel for plaintiff in error for a reversal of the cause. These are:

First, the validity of plaintiff’s location being admitted by the answer, it was incumbent upon the defendant to plead forfeiture of the claim through failure to do the proper annual assessment work, and that this the defendant has not sufficiently done; and,

Second, the admission of certain testimony of the witness Rimmer over objections and exceptions.

As to the first assignment, it must be conceded that the allegations setting up forfeiture are meager, but they do state that “all of plaintiff’s right to and in said claim became forfeited, and the said claim and all of it became a part of the public domain, subject to location according to law as mineral land, long prior to the year 1912,” and this in conjunction with a denial that plaintiff has performed the annual labor required by law to hold said claim since the year 1909, or that it has performed any labor upon said claim subsequent to that date. A trial was had upon practically the sole issue as to whether plaintiff had performed the requisite annual…