The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-14
COPPER In SOLUTION
The Anaconda Mining Company Files
Its Answer.
LEDFORD'S DAMAGE SUIT
There Was No Intention to Destroy
the Plaintiffs Business Of Pre-
oIpitation The Water Is
Not Worthless.

The Anaconda Mining company,
through its attorneys, william Scallon
and w. w. Dixon, yesterday filed an
answer in the district court to the in
junction and damage suit of William L.
Ledford, growing out of the lease on
the waters of the Anaconda and st,
Lawrence mines. The answer denies
the defendants disregarded any rights
Of the plaintiff by reason of the con-
tract alleged in the complaint, or 9TH
erwise, or that they are seeking to in
ture or destroy the plaintiffs business
or precipitatfng copper from the waters
of the mines or otherwise committed
breach of the alleged lease. The an
swfer denies that the company did
commence. on it's own behalf, or for
its own use or benefit, the business of
precipita'ting the copper contained In
the water flowing from the mines, or
that 1t will continue to do so. notwfth-
standing the rights OF the plaintiff.
The defendants aver the facts to be
that about the LIST of September and
before and since that time the waters
in the Anaconda and st. Lawrence
mines carried so much copper in solu-
ton that they ate UP and destroyed the
pipes used to convey the water and to
pump ii out OF the mines so rapidly as
to make 1t impracticable and not prac-
ticable at all without very great ex-
keep the mines free therefrom. In or
der to avoid the pipes from being de-
Stroyed the company placed old iron
and other material at points on the
1000 and 1,200-foot levels of the Anacon-
da and the S00-foot level of the st.
Lawrence and allowed the water to run
over the iron so that the copper held
In solution might to some extent be
separated from the water. This has
been done in the Anaconda for period
not to exceed six weeks and in the st.
Lawrence not to exceed three weeks
from the LIST of September. The de-
PENDANTS have at no time carried on
the precipitation as a business or for
the value of the copper or to prevent
the plaintiff from obtaining 1t, but only
to prevent the eating up and destruc-
ton of pipes conducting the water and
to enable the defendant to raise the
water from the mines so that they
could be worked. Since Oct. Is the
water has, by means of boxes, been
carried over the iron without touching
1t, and nothing has been done by the
defendants to precipitate the copper
since that date or at any time since
the plaintiffs action was commenced.
All the copper precipitalted by the de-
PENDANTS Is still in the mines and none
of II has been removed or disposed of,
and the defendants have, at all times,
been ready and willing to. and now
offer to return to plaintiff three-fourths
or rs per cent, which IS the plaintiff
share under the contract, of all the cop
per at any time obtained or precipi-
tated by them.
The actions of the defendants set out
In the answer constitute the alleged
breaches of contract complained of by
the plaintiff, and for which he claims
to recover damages.
The answer further denies that the
water has become worthless by reason
of the defendants actions and denies
that the plaintiffs precipitating plant
has become complete loss to him. and
AYERS that the defendants have no
knowledge as to what the plaintiff has
expended or how much profit he makes
a month, but deny that he has been
damaged in the sum of s6.493.50 since
Sept. II, or that he suffers damages at
the rate of S166 so a day.