Hill v. Smith
Before: Sanderson
Synopsis
Form of Denial in Answer. — If an answer, in response to an allegation of the complaint, instead of denying it in express terms, contains the averment that the defendant did not commit the act charged, or that the fact alleged to exist does not exist, these averments of the answer traverse the matters alleged, and are good denials of the same.
Proof of Mining for Gold.— Evidence that a party is at work on a claim, and is mining, and is at work with tools commonly used by miners, is sufficient to justify a jury in finding that he is mining for gold, without any proof that he has found any gold in the claim.
Mining above the Head of a Ditch.—Where a ditch has been excavated from the bed of a stream, and its water has been diverted through the same for mining purposes, a miner has no right to work a claim located above its head after the ditch is dug, in such manner as to mingle mud and sediment with the water, and injure its value to the ditch owner for mining purposes, or to fill up the ditch and reservoirs with the same so as to lessen their capacity and increase the expense of cleaning them out.
Same.—The fact that a miner, working a claim above the head of a ditch, conducts his mining operations in such a manner as to cause the least possible injury to the ditch and water flowing in the same, does not excuse his responsibility for injuries caused by working the same. It matters not how cautiously or carefully the miner works, for if the ditch owner is in fact injured, the miner is none the less liable. XJse of Water for Mining. — As between ditch owners and rhiners using the waters of a stream in the mineral region for mining purposes, the law does not tolerate any injury by one to the prior rights of the other.
Common Law. — The reasons which constitute the groundwork of the rules of the common law touching water rights have not lost their governing force in the mineral regions of this State. The conditions to which we are called upon to apply those rules are changed rather th‘an the rules themselves.
Prior and Subsequent Appropriators of Water.—In controversies in the mining regions between the prior and subsequent appropriators of water, the question to be determined is, has the use and enj oyment of the water, for the purposes for which the first appropriaior claims it3 been impaired by the acts of the subsequent claimant?
By the Court, Sanderson, C. J. The objection to the form in which many of the allegations contained in the complaint are denied is not a substantial one, in our judgment. Any form of denial which fairly meets and traverses the allegation is admissible. Suppose it is alleged in a complaint that the defendant at a certain time made and delivered to the plaintiff his certain promissory note, etc. Is not this allegation as directly and fairly traversed by saying: “ I did not at the time specified, or at any other time, make or deliver to the plaintiff the note described in the complaint,” as by saying: “I deny that on the day specified, or at any other time, I made or delivered to the plaintiff the note described in the complaint?” We think both serve equally well to form the issue. The former mode (which is the one adopted in this case) is less usual than the latter, but we are unable to perceive why it is not equally as good. It matters but little which form is adopted. If the denial is not evasive, but directly traverses the matter alleged, it' is good, without regard to the mere form in which it is expressed. The denials in this case do not appear to be evasive, but on the contrary, we think they fairly meet the issues tendered by the complaint.
[480]We are also of the opinion that there is nothing in the point made by counsel for appellant to the effect that the matter set- out in the answer by way of excuse or justification is unsupported by the evidence. Assuming that the jury must have determined at the threshold of their investigations that the digging by the defendant of which the plaintiff complained was done by him in good faith, in pursuit of gold, we think the evidence upon that point, in the absence of any counter testimony, was sufficient to sustain their finding. All the witnesses, including the plaintiff’s, speak of the defendant’s “ claim,” and of his labor as “mining.” They also speak of his “sluice-boxes,” “wing-darn,” mode of “working claim” and “depositing tailings,” all of which are familiar terms in the vocabulary of the miner, and would hardly -have been employed by the witnesses had not the defendant been engaged in mining. From these circumstances, and in the absence of all counter testimony, the jury were justified in finding that the defendant was engaged in mining for gold. If they erred at all, it was not in so finding the fact, but in attaching to it, when found, too much importance, and regarding it as a justification on the part of the defendant, as they seem to have done, for whatever injuries he may have caused the plaintiff by his mining operations. And this brings us to the principal and most difficult question involved in this case.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)