This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ... together it takes very little evidence to shew that they have become co-partners as well as co-owners. Decision of Henderson, Co.j., affirmed on this point. Appeal by defendant from a judgment of Henderson, Co.J., statement, delivered on October 5th, 1903, in an action tried at Atlin in the mining jurisdiction of the County Court, on September 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, respecting certain placer mining operations in the years 1901, 190 and 1903, on Pine Creek. The case is reported only on the point of a mining partnership which His Honour found existed between the plaintiff and defendant Blunck. The appeal came on for hearing at Vancouver before the Full Court, consisting of Hunter, C.J., Martin and Duff, JJ., on 28th April, 1904. J. D. Taylor, for the appellant: The operations began in 1901 Argument, between three co-owners, Scott, Harrigan and the plaintiff; and it is for the defendants who allege it to prove that these co-owners became partners, and the evidence here does not justify such finding. (The learned counsel here reviews the evidence.) A. L. Belyea, K.C., for the respondent: The three placer claims in question were grouped together for the purpose of working them by leave of the Gold Commissioner, and the evidence shews that whatever these parties may have been at the beginning of their relation, the status of co-owners as between Sabin and Blunck was altered to that of co-partners as well as co-owners at the time of the matters complained of. Per Curiam: --The learned Judge was right in finding that there was a co-partnership between these two persons to work these claims. It takes very little for working co-owners to drift into the position of co-partners. Appeal dismissed on this point. Judgment. Note.--For other cases on mining partnerships: s..