The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-11-22

pOrIOnS JlereO1 as lie between NeIl4Cdi
planes drawn downWards, as ABOVE oe-
scribed, through the end lines of his loca-
ton so continued in their own direction
that such planes viii intersect such ex,
terror parts of such veins or lodeS; ana
nothing in this section shall authorize
the locator or po55esSOr of vein or lode
which extends in its downW "a; l, course ;21 Sc
enter upon the surface of a claim owned
or possessed by another. PROVIDED. az
of vein or lode shall have priority over
| a subsequent location on the same vein
or lode.
And it is hereby expressly declared
/ that location laid crosswise Of a vein
/ or lode. so that its center line crosses the
same instead of following the course
thereof, will secure only SO much OF the
! vein or lode as it actually crosses at
/ the surface. and the side lines of the To-
cation will become the end lines thereof,
/ for the purpose of defining the rights OF
! the owners. A location shall be deemed TO
have been laid crosswise when the small
est angle made by the center line failing
! on the general course or the VEN or looe
/ is greater than 40 degrees.
Section 80. Where two or more veins
/ or lodeS intersect or cross each other
on their downward, dip: priority OF TUE
be entitled to all ore or mineral contained
| within the space of intersections: Pro-
! vided, however, that the subsequent loca-
! ton shall have the right of way through
! the said space of tersaction for the pur-
! pose of the convenient working of the
said subsequent location; and provided
also, that where. two or more veins or
! lodes unite on their downward dip, the
oldest or prior location shall take the
vein or lode below the point Of union, in
Guiding all the space or intersection.
A RADICAL CHANGE.
1t will be observed that the latter part
| of section 81 provides that where the
center line OF a mineral claim crosses a
vein. or as the legislature expresses it,
J lis laid crosswise of Vein, the owner
shall only be entitled TO so much OF the
| vein as the line crosses at the surface,
and that, in such an event, the side lines
of the claim shall become its end lines
a radical change inasmuch as it deprives
the owner of extra lateral right which
! he would otherwise have been entitled
to-. The section then proceeds in effect to
| define a ''croSswise location" as one
whose smallest angle made by the IN
tersection of the center location line with
the trend or strike" of a vein is greater
than IS degrees. This Smallest angle
section in the plaintiff S vein, which is the
one in dispute, and which dips into the
Iron Mask, is shown on two of the plans
that are sworn to as being accurate, as
being 80 degrees q minutes. For in
stance. the bearing of the Center Star
company's location line is north 81 de-
Crees 81 minutes east, and the strike
of their vein is north 81 degrees 06 min
utes east. The difference between the
two is, obviously, 30 degrees q minutes,
which is. of course, less than the
statutory angle OF 40 degrees. The con-
tention therefore, of the defendants
counsel. that the plaintiffs location line
! is with respect TO the vein in dispute a
crosswise location" falls to the ground.
APEX OF A MINERAL CLAIM.
AS L construe section 81 the apex of a
mineral claim is q statutory and not a
mathematical apex or pinnacle, but is
the top of a vein at any place along its
profile, however high or low that profile
may be, for the words used in the sec
ton are top, or apex. The act gives nc
definition OF an apex line, that is to say,
as to whether it may run slyward OF
: otherwise; but it has always been under
stood here, as well as in the mining COM
munities to the south of us, that such
a line is horizontal one.
These observations clear the way to a
consideration of the question in dispute.
His honor Judge Form, at the instance
of the Center Star company, granted an
Injunction on the 9Th day of this month
restraining the Iron Mask company from
trespassng in the plaintiffs tunnel
which runs horizontally through the dig
: of their northerly vein, which vein is de-
scribed in the aff1davits as vein No. 2
: whose apex is in their ground In the
, order made by the learned judge it is
, stated that the plaintiffs undertook to dc
; no further work In any OF their tunnels
|, or workings" within the boundaries OF
/ the Iron Mask location until that order
t should be dissolved or otherwise dis:
: posed of. On the motion before me
( held that order as it stood, estopped tho
+ plaintiffs from further sinking shaft
No. 8, as it was included in the WORD
, workings This shaft. according t.
| Mr.. Durrant's affidavit, has been sunk
/ to a depth of 1874 feet, in ore all that dis
: ! dance, the ore being the dip of the plain.
I tiffs vein. No. 2, which, as | have said
runs into the Iron Mask. Both he ant
: Mr.. Joyce state that the shaft is not in
tended to be used for hosting purposes
/ but the defendants have no right what
/. ever to object to it on that account, a:
\ the shaft is in ore which, by law belong!
, to the plaintiffs.
: Mr. Daily, counsel for the plaintiffs
= states on affidavit that he drew up thC
. order in question hurriedly; and he dis
s avows ever having undertaken to stol
y work in the shaft, as such stoDDag
g would virtually mean the stoppage O
: further development in the plaintiff
understood as not conSenting now t,
any such undertaking, and l certainly
: under the circumstances have no RICH
to require 1t. He made this statement a
his notice of motion is, in terms, t
merely vary the injunction granted b,
Judge Form, by extending its time limi
,, until the hearing of this action.
IRON MASK OPPOSED IT.
Counsel for the Iron Mask company ha
strenuously opposed continuatiCSl o
thu Injunction, as well as Mr. Days ap
. p1cation that the plaintiffs should be al
1t lowed to continue the sinking of shaft No
+ 8. AfhdavitS on both sides were had witt
a respect TO an alleged infraction by TIL
y plaintiffs of Judge FORMS order, mas
much as they had continued to SiDk tn
/ shaft, but l am satisfied that there was NJ
d intention on their part to disobey the or
: der, and that the work which they dit
% arose from the mistake in its terms
Il which is explained in Mr.. Days aft
~ daVit.
: EVIDENCE ONE-SIDED.
d With respect to the main question, tn
l. evidence is wholly one-sided. for the onl
aff1daVits before me are those put in o.
n behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr.. Durant
their superintendent, and Mr.. Joyce thei
= foreman. MIR. Durant testiffes to the &C
L curacy of several plans, showing as the
e. do, the relative positions of the Cente
lie Star, Iron Mask War Eagle and Idah
le locations, and also the positions of tn
~ plaintiffs shafts No. and their vel
Il No. 2, the vein in dispute, and its di
in northerly direction at an angle O
n about 80 degrees into the Iron Mas
1t ground He also states that he has trace
3 this vein from the easterly line of tn
= Center Star claim along it's surface unit
it enters the War Eagle location. an
that no part of its apex lies within tn
boundaries of the Iron Mask.
,e LEGISLATURE SETTLED THE POINT
IL Moreover, in paragraph of his aft
davit he states that the mouth of til
< tunnel above referred to is in the Dlair
W tiff's ground, and that its course, for
II considerable distance. is within the SUI
10 face boundaries of the Iron Mask locs