The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-12-03
Butte Department.
THEY ARE ENJOINED
The Butte & Boston People Must Keep
OF of the Wild Bill.
A WHOLELOT OF TESTIMONY
Decisions of Other States Quoted
by Both Sides-An Exception
Was Taken to the Ruling
OF the Court.

Judge speer yesterday granted q
temporary injunction in the suit Of the
Anaconda Copper Mining company
against the Butte & Boston Mining
company. restraining the latter from
mining or extracting ore from the vein
of the Wild Bill lode claim, either un-
der the surface of that claim or on the
dip OF the vein underneath the surface
Of the GRAY Rock. the property of the
defendant. and from the workings OF
which the alleged trespass was COM
mitted. A lot of testimony was intro
duced at the hearing yesterday. Wit
nesses for the Anaconda company tes-
titled that parts of the 1000. LOO and
1.20o-foot levels OF the Gray Rock ex-
tended under the Wild Bill. The vein
runs through the west end line OF the
Wild Bill and for several hundred
feet through the claim that passes
out of the side line of the Wild Bill
and into the Gray Rock at point
$50 to 200 feet distant from the north
east corner OF the Gray Rock. The
1000. 1.100 and 1,200-foot levels OF the
Gray Rock extend westerly for several
hundred feet through the portions OF
the vein underlying the apex in the
Wild Bill claim. and considerable stop
ing has been done there. Insofar as
the vein lies within the vertical lines
of the Wild Bill It was admitted that
Ii belongs to that claim. The right
TO the dip of the vein inside OF the
Gray Rock from the side line and
easterly TO a point where the apex
crosses the side line depends on the
decision of the question involved in the
Black Rock-Niagara case. The testi-
mony showed that an open trench run
on the dividing line between the two
claims by the plaintiff developed an
apex, presumably that OF the vein In
question or a branch of II. The testi-
mony Of the defendants engineers Is
intended to show that a part of the
apex on the hanging wall of the vein
should be found further west. but no
developing work had been made to de-
termine this.
The defendant denies any extra lat
eral right to the plaintiff and claims
to be a co-owner under a contract with
Lee w. Foster for the purchase of
fourth interest in the Wild Bill with a
right of possession while the deed re-
mains in escrow. Evidence was intro
duced to show that there Is at present
in the State Savings bank a deed
from Lee w. Foster to G. III. Palmer
and j. A. Coram for fourth interest in
the Wild Bill. The consideration named
is 100000. payable at the rate of $1,000
month from. the first Of last May. So
far all the payments have been made
by the Butte & Boston company and
Mr.. Palmer said that the property was
purchased for the Butte & Boston and
that the company was in possession
OF 1T.
The main defense. and the one on
which was relied most to prevent the
Injunction was that, as the Butte *
u IT,
the Wild Bill as against the Anaconda
company's three-fourths, II had right
to mine the vein as a co-tenant and
that the Anaconda company's remedy
was a suit for accounting, and Mr..
Forbis in his argument claimed that
the Butte & Boston could take every
thing in sight and could not be en-
Joined unless 1t were shown that the
company was not solvent and could
not respond in damages or in a suit
for accounting. The rule of account
ing, he said. would be TO deduct the
cost of extraction and hosting the ore
and account according to the market
value of the ore on the dump. 1t was
claimed. however, on the part OF the
plaintiff. and not denied. that the work
had been done without the knowledge
OF the plaintiff and that the defendant
had taken and so far had appropriated
all of the ores extracted from the por-
tions within the lines of the Wild Bill.
There was no statement made by the
defendant as to the amount of ore
taken out and no offer to deliver to the
plaintiff it's share of the ore or to ac-
count for IL.
William Scallon. in an exhaustive ar
gument for the plaintiffs side of the
case, quoted an Idaho decision that was
directly in point, holding that the ma
jorfty interest in a mining property
had IA right to control, ON the presump-
tlon. however, that the party was will
ing to Join in working the property.
Mr.. Scallon said that the Anaconda
company had the right to join with the
Butte & Boston in working the prop
erty II IL so desired. and II IT did. II
had the right to control. The facts
were, however. that the defendant had
been working the property without the
plaintiffs knowledge, and had offered
no statement on accounting. Mr.. For
bis. in replying 20 Mr.. Scallon, said he
thought the Idaho decision was not
good law. and he quoted some Califor-
MA decisions in support of his conten-
tton that a cotenant could not be en-
Joined. acd the plaintiffs only remedy
was by a suit for an accounting.
w. W. Dixon. one of the attorneys
for the Anaconda company, said the
California decision quoted by Mr.. For
bis did not apply in this state. as Mon
rana had a statutory provision covering
that point, which California did not
have. Section 5s6 of the code of civil