Matko v. Daley

Citations

• 10 Ariz. 175
• 85 P. 721
• 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 117

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — Hearsay—Pay-Eolls.—In, an action to quiet title to a mining location, defendant claimed the ground under a relocation as forfeited for failure to perform the annual assessment work. Plaintiffs’ witnesses, who participated in the making of such annual expenditure, testified that B. and S. assisted them, but B. and S. were not present at the trial, nor was their absence accounted for. The pay-rolls of a certain mining company purporting to-have been signed by B. and S. were introduced for the purpose of showing that they were working for such company at the same time, and therefore could not have performed the work on the claim in dispute. Held that such records were merely hearsay and inadmissible for the purpose of contradicting plaintiffs’ witnesses.</p> <p>2. Same — Signatures—Identification-—Sufficiency.—Testimony that it was the custom of the company for the men to sign the pay-rolls before they could get their money; that these records were the payrolls for December; that they were signed by men who had worked for that month; that he was not present when they were signed; that he could not testify that the signatures were the signatures of B. and S., only that the signatures purported to be their signatures; that the body of the pay-rolls was in the handwriting of the former paymaster of the company; that precautions were always taken to see that the person who signed the pay-roll was the person to whom the money ivas due, — was insufficient to prove the signatures.</p> <p>3. Mines and Mining — Relocation Notice — Forfeited Claims.- — A’ location notice of a mining claim, as a forfeited claim, which fails to state that the claim was located as forfeited or abandoned property, as required by the statute, is void.</p>