The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-09-11
UNITED STATES COURT
The Colusa-Parrot VS.. the Ana
conda Mining Company.
HEARING THE DEMURRER
IL Alleges That the Complaint Is Un'
certain in Various Particulars
Judge Knowles Sustained
Two Points.

TIL. time of the United states circuit
court yesterday was consumed by the
hearing of the demurrer in the case OF
the Colusa-Parrot Mining and Smelt-
ing company VS.. the Anaconda Copper
Mining company. The to the
complaint was filed by the defendants
and was argued by Attorney W. j..
Scallon for the Anaconda company and
by Frank T.. Corbett for the Colusa-
Parrot. The demurrer is as follows:
That said complaint is uncertain in
that
Il. 1t does not sufficiently describe
or designate or identify the mining
claims of which plaintiff claims to be
the owner.
-. 1t does not state or show within
which of the three lode mining claims
mentioned in the complaint the apex or
any vein. lode, ledge or ore deposit,
upon which it is alleged hat defendant
entered. ~trespassed and extracted ore,
is situated.
"3. IL does not show beneath the SUR
face of which of the three lode mining
claims mentioned in the complaint de-
PENDANT entered or t~respassed or ex-
tracted ore.
"a. 1t does not sufficiently or at all
describe or state the particular place
where the alleged entering. trespass or
extraction of ore was committed.
IS. 1t does not state the quantity or
ore alleged to have been extracted by
defendant.
&c. 1t does not state how much of
the ores alleged to have been extracted
or taken ava or converted by defend
ant was the property OF n plalntlfr
and how much of the same was the
property of the predecessors in inter-
oct 90 the pIafpfifT nor docs II show
any right in plaintiff to recover any
damages for any trespass or for the val
ne of any ore extracted by defendant
prior to the time when plaintiff became
the owner of the property described in
the complaint.
And defendant further and separate
ly demurs to aid complaint for the
reason that the same is ambiguous in
that
81. 1t does not sufficiently describe
or designate or identify the mining
claims of which plaintiff claims to be
the owner.
"2. 1t does not state or show within
which of the three lode mining claims
mentioned in the complaint the apex OF
any vein, lode, ledge or ore deposit,
upon which ii is alleged that defendant
entered, trespassed and extracted ore
is situated.
80. 1t does not show beneath the sur
face of which of the three lode mining
claims mentioned in the complaint the
defendant entered or ~trespassed or eX'
tracted ore.
-. 1t does not sufficiently or at al
describe or state the particular place
where the alleged entering, trespass OF
extraction of ore was committed.
-. 1t does not state the quantity o.
ore alleged to have been extracted 10y
defendant.
g. 1t does not state how much of thu
ores alleged to have been extracted ol
taken away or converted by defendan'
was the property Of the plaintiff anC
how much of the same was the prOpert!
Of the predecessors in interest of th'
plaintiff, nor does it show an. right IN
plaintiff to recover any damages 70
any trespass or for the value of an
ore extracted by defendant prior to tn,
time when plaintiff became the owne
of the property described in the com
plant.
Wherefore defendant demands tina
this action be dismissed, and for de
fendant's cost herein
After listening to the argument
Judge Knowles sustained the demurre
on two points and overruled it SO ia
as the balance is concerned. He sus
aimed the demurrer in points l and
of the first portion and overruled tn
other points.