The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-03-02


Value of one
Fer CT. Copper. ton on dump.
o-ol .................$ &. 80
40 .....-.. ................ $500. 1857
Il. Vo....-... ............ ...-....... lS.1S
1'.oz........ .-.......... ........... $500
On cross-examination the witness said
that he treated $500 tons of ore from
the Snohomish dump on which 20 per
cent. was saved; and 1889 tons on which
SI.9 per cent. was saved.
The witness said that he did not in
his estimate figure the interest on the
money invested in the smelter. or the
interest on the money invested in the
tramway. He thought a smelter as
good as the Butte & Boston could be
built for 100000. The interest at 10 per
cent. would be $4,000. but the witness
had not figured the proportionate
amount of interest in making his esti-
mate. On redirect examination Mr.
Klepetko said that the Butte & Boston
concentration has a capacity of about
$50 tons per day and treated last year
10000 tons. He thought the NJ. o. p
concentration has about the same capa-
city. Taking the investment of the
Butte & Boston plant at $4,000 and
the interest at 100000 per annum, the
proportionate amount of interest would
be about Is cents per ton.
John F. Forbis, for the plaintiff then
offered IN evidence letters of guardian
ship to the Marchesseau children in or
der to make good the title of the plant
if to the Michael Dewitt. A copy of the
petition for sale of real estate and of
the order to show cause on petition for
sale OF real estate; copy of the proof
OF publication of the order; an order
or sale of real estate. including the
Michael Dewitt claim; the guardians
return of sale of real estate: of the or
der fixing date for the return of the
a ~ rot
the notice of hearing; and the order
confirming the sale of real estate, were
also filed. The letters of administration
to Sophronius Marchesseau in the case
of Julia Marchesseau, deceased; the ap-
praisement and inventory of property
by the administrator, the final account
and petition for final distribution, the
order setting day for the hearing of the
same and the decree of distribution We're
filed. The plaintiff then rested.
The Defense Opens
Mr.. Vale of the counsel for the de-
Tense moved the court to instruct the
jury to find for the defendant The
motion is based upon the following
grounds, to-wit
First-The plaintiff in his complaint
alleges the ownership or claim of own
ership by the defendants of the Rarus.
Johnstown and Little Ida lode claims, or
parts thereof; that said claims are min
eral claims located under the laws of
the United States relative to the appro-
prlation and location of mineral lands
and that the said claims or some of
them have been patented by the United
States, and that the same lie north and
northwest of and near to the Michael |
Dewitt lode claim of the plaintiff
Plaintiff further alleges that defend
ants claim the right to enter upon the
plaintiffs premises tmeaning the entry |
cOmDl9inp6 of and a 10 ha
full and unlawfuD by reason of the fact |
that certain veins owned or claimed by |
the defendants or in their possession |
nave their tops or apices within the |
ground owned or claimed as a portion /
or the Rarus. Johnstown or Little Ida |
claims, and that the defendants assert |
the right to follow such veins in their
downward courses or dips, although the
same so depart from a perpendicular as
TO depart from the ground owned or
claimed by the defendants, and enter /
the premises owned or claimed by the
plaintiff, being the said Michael Dewitt
claim.
Having made the foregoing allega-
tons. the plaintiff further alleges that
the veins upon which the defendants
have mined within the lines of the
Michael Dewitt lode claim" are not such
veins as can be followed on their dip
beyond defendants lines into the
veins are broken and intersected by
faults in such manner that the same
be traced or followed from the
ground of the defendants into the said
Michael Dewitt lode claim, and that
therefore the defendants have no right
to enter upon PLAINTIFFS premises for
the purpose of extracting ore by rea-
son of their ownership of the apices of
any veins within their ground
That said last mentioned allegations
are put in issue by the defendants
answer, that plaintiff has introduced
no evidence in support thereof, that
said allegations are material and that
n the absence of proof thereof the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
Second-That plaintiff further affirm
ltively alleges in his complaint that
he veins upon which defendants have
been extracting ore within the premises
II the plaintiff do not in their course
lr strike depart from the end lines of
he defendants claims or possessions
out that the same depart from the side
ines of such claims in such a manner
Is 10 prohibit said defendants from fol-
owing the same beyond the side lines
Il their own possessions or claims into
he plaintiffs Michael Dewitt lode
lain.
The allegations so made by the plain
In are put in issue by the answer of
he defendants. The plaintiff has pro-
luced no evidence in support thereof.
The said allegations are material. and
n the absence of proof thereof the
plaintiff is not entitled TO recover
Third-The plaintiff further affirm
Luyeiy alleges in his complaint that
here are several veins which defend
lnts claim the right to follow on their
lip beyond the side lines and into the |
rounds of the plaintiff. but that Meth
T OF said veins in their courses or
trikes depart from the end lines of the
AID claims or possessions of the de-
endants. And plaintiff further alleges
hat the ground claimed by the defend
nts was not so located as TO have any
nd lines whatever as provided by stat
lie. and that in consequence OF the To-
ators of the ground or claims owned
T possessed by the defendants to mark
ne same with end lines parallel or 70
ocate the same along the defendants,
ems. but on the contrary having To-
ated the same across the said veins.