The Anaconda standard., 1898-02-26

lit to prove that the vein has its apex
on that ground. On the Dewitt claim
is an upraise, known as the Snohomish
upraise. From a point go feet from the
surface to the 900 is a clear and WELL
defined vein. That vein. from the sur
face to depth of 200 or 290 feet. is red
oxidized ore. rich in silver. From that
point to the 400 1t dipped to the south,
and from the 400 down ii is nearly YER
ticai. Below the 800 the ore changes in
character becoming darker in color and
of a higher grade of copper and less sill
yer. This vein in the Snohomish up
raise is known as the south vein. and
drifts had been run at the 60, 1884, $50
and $50 levels, showing the country
rock on each side.
On the north vein of the Dewitt, an
other upraise had been made in which
had been found clear. we'll defined walls
of a ledge. The ore is of the same gem
eral character as that of the south
vein, the same changes being noticed
with depth. There is also a narrow
cross-vein, crossing the north and south
veins. 1t was argued that all three
veins apex on the Dewitt ground.
When Mr.. Lindsay concluded his re-
marks Judge Mediation. for the de-
fendants was allowed to amend the
defendants answer in relation to the
value of the ore admitted as having
been extracted from beneath the sur
face of the Michael Dewitt. The amount
stated in the answer was 10000 tons of
the alleged value of s24,S31. and this he
said was too great by half.
Court then adjourned for the noon
recess.
At the opening of the afternoon ses-
sion Attorney John F. Forbis offered in
evidence United States patent for the
Michael Dewitt lode claim, granted April
%, 1892. to Frank b. Thomes, w. H.
Archer and w. ID. Archer as trustee for
1Hnr r,,t,g II "A o.
Il, 1883, from S. Marchesseau. as guar
dian for the Marcnesseau heirs, to the
Butte d Boston company OF two-ninths
of the Michael Dewitt lode claim was
also offered. To this deco the Defend
ants objected, through Judge McHatton,
hrst, because incompetent. second, that
1t is immateral; third, that the plaintin
has not shown or onered to show that
the guardian named III tine deed ever
made application to the probate court of
Silver Bow county for an order of the
court authorizing her to sell the prop
erty for the minors; fourth, that it has
not been shown or offered 20 be shown
that the probate court had granted any
order to sell the real estate named in the
deed; fifth, that ii has not been shown or
offered to be shown that the guardian
reported to the probate court the sale
OF the property as required by law, or
any decree of the court confirming the
sale.
Mr.. Forbis contended in reply that
such showings were not necessary and
could be produced. but being so volum-
nous had not been brought forward.
he claimed that the deed in question was
plima facie evidence and was all that
was necessary. He would produce the
order confirming the sale. Judge
Knowles overruled the objection and ex-
ception was taken.
MIR. Forbis then offered a deed from
W. II. Archer as trustee for the Mar
chesseau heirs quit-claiming any inter-
est in the Michael Dewitt lode claim to
h. Rollins Morse. This was objected to
by Judge Mediation on the grounds that
1t is incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial; that it was not shown that the
grantor was trustee for the heirs or au-
tlorlZed to execute the deed. The OBJ
lection was oveIruled ana exception
takn.
The plaintiff then offered a deed
dated Aug. 10, 1889, from Eugenia Tnuot
and her husband OF Quebec conveying
all interest in the Michael Dewitt 10 tine
Butte Boston company. No objection
was offered to this. Next came deed
dated oct. 81, 1890, from Frank B.
Ihomes TO James A. Murray, conveying
one-thlrd interest in the Micnael
Dewitt, and deed dated Oct. 10, 1885,
from +. B. Thomes to Charles 5. War
rem, conveying a one-sixth interest in
the same. No objections We're made TO
these. A deed from James A. Murray
TO the Butte & Boston company. dated
Nov. 2l 1893, conveying a one-third in
terest in the Michael Dewitt, was ad-
mitted. A deed dated April %, 1885
from Mr.. and Mrs. Charles s. Warren,
conveying to the Butte q Boston a one
sixth interest in the Mlcnael Dewitt, Was
admitted. a deed dated Feb. 2. 1897,
from the Globe National bank, receiver
Of the Butte q Boston company, con-
yeying to Z. Rollins Morse the prop
erty in question with other property,
and as assignment from the Butte q
Boston company to the receiver. was
offered. This was objected to as ineom-
petent to prove any title or right of ac-
ton of l.. Rollins Morse, the plaintiff in
this case; that it is Irrelevant; that it is
not shown that the grantor was a duly
appointed receiver of the Butte d. Bos-
ton company, or that he had any au-
tEority to make the sale. The plaintiff
offered to show this thing If required,
and the objection was overruled.
The first witness for the plaintiff was
then sworn, $. Marchesseau. He said
he was uncle OF Julian Marehesseau. He
was guardian of the children OF Julian
Marchesseau, and he executed the deed
for them to the Butte & Boston COM
Eany. The wife of Julian Marchesseau is
now Mrs. Eugenia Thuot.
Mr. Forbis said this completed the
evidence of ownership from the patent
down and he would now offer evidence
showing the title prior TO that time. in
order to show that the plaintiff owns
five-sixths of the property. The original
location by II. T. Tnomes, j. Marches
seau and A. c. Witter was shown. and
a deed of one-sixth from A. c. Witter
to Henry c. Bodley. A deed dated Nov.
25, 1885. from H. T. Thomes and wife
sod
third interest. Frank b. Thomes was
sworn. He said that Mr.. Bodley in 1885
and in 1856 did not do the assessment
work and he advertised Mr.. Bodley and
his heirs out. He did the work for Mr..
Bodley and was never repaid. He pub
lished notice in the Inter Mountain to
the Bodley heirs
IL RerRar of the Inter AInuntai, 1,rn-