The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-27

Railway company above mentioned. to-
wit: About the place where h tail
lngs from the concentrator Of the Bos-
ton a Montana Consolidated Copper
n Silver Mining company's lower
works were being deposited on the 18th
day Of November. 1892. These premises
have been described TO you by the wit
nesses.
1T is evident that the defendant had
and has no right to dump any tailings
from what has been called the Liquida-
tor concentration. The only right to
dump tailings upon the ground in dis
pute vested in the defendant Is the
right to dump tailings from works upon
the leased premises. The question arises
as to what is the meaning of the term
tailings as used in the written contract
between the Butte q Boston Mining
company and +. Augustus Heinze.
Il charge you that the ordinary
meaning Of the word tailings does not
include the word Stag. In mining tall
ings are ordinarily understood to he the
refuse eliminated from ore by means OF
water. In gold placer mining the tall
lngs are the sand and gravel eliminated
from the gold by means Of water.
1T has been claimed in this case that
the word tailings has a scientific mean
ing and that this includes Stag from a
smelter. The only N who has testi-
fed to this scientific meaning Is +. Au-
gustus Heinze. as I remember the evil
dence. The witness Thomas claimed
that said word had no such scientific
meaning. The witness Halter. as /
understand him. said that in books upon
m~etallurgy the word Stag was always
used as the refuse from the smelling of
ores. and tailings from the ~concentrat-
ing of ore by means OF water.
ut devolves upon the defendant to
that in scientific language the
word tailings includes the word Stag and
that the Butte a. Boston Mining COM
knew that Heinz understood this
language In the scientific sense when the
referred to was made. II o
find from the evidence that sal word
taillngs In science or scientific language
includes Stag and hat the said word
was used by said parties to that con-
tract In that sense. then you should
find that the defendant had a right to
dump the Stag he has upon said prem
Uses. There is no dispute as TO Its hav-
ing dumped a quantity of Stag upon the
same.
in constituting this written agree
ment the court instructs you that the
defendant had no rights hereunder to
any tailings on plaintiffs ground
from its said concentration. and that its
act in so doing was a trespass on
PLAINTIFFS rights and possessions. and
must find a verdict for the plant
n for the mount OF damages IL has
by reason of the depositing of
such taillngs on plaintiffs ground. The
'act hat defendant had the right to de-
posit tailings on the premises from an
place did not give 1t the right TO
the tailings from the tract
as the concentration tract, and in
Icing so IT became as much a trespasser
Is n Il nae had no rights at all in
premises"
The plaintiff in It's complaint alleged
Is ownership OF the entire tract OF
round described in its complaint east
{ the Montana Union Railroad COM
tract and h a the NJ. o. p. COM
any entered upon the same and BUSTED
he plaintiff therefrom.
The defendant. in its answer denied
he plaintiffs title to the premises. and
Ell up several rights in itself TO use
he premises in question for the uses
which II has put the same. The
defendant also pleaded h statute of
to plaintiffs claims for
damages. Among other defenses plead
q by the defendant. II alleged that by
certain written agreement IL secured
rom the plaintiffs predecessor In in
crest. the IL. q II. Mining company.
n easement or right to dump or store
ailings upon the premises in question.
he deeds in evidence I'm the action,
owever. showed the title to the prem
res to be i'm the plaintiff. BY the terms
Z the agreement, the defendant was
ccorded the right of storing and
JUMPING 'tailings' on the ground own
d by the plaintiff from any works
on the leased premises. IL was
Omitted by the defendant I'm the evil
ence that all the tailings stored on the
premises by the defendant
come from a concentration erected.
OF on the leased premises. but on an
tract of ground which Is I'm pos
ession of the defendant, and which has
cen generally designated as the con
site.
The jury was excused until 10 o'clock
Ionday morning. The rest of his week
III he devoted to ex parte matters,