The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-12

three parallel veins. This vein seemed
TO correspond with what the plaintiff 5
witnesses described as the YOUNGSTOWN
discovery vein.
The witness described fourth vein
as showing near the surface in the
southwest corner of the Rarus vein
NTH vein, in the same neighbor-
hood farther south, was also traced. 1t
is developed for 200 feet, according to
the witness
sixth parallel vein was pointed out
on the apex map still farther south.
Then, south of these. two more veins
were traced. The apex of the above
veins are inside the Johnstown lines,
but the west end of the first of these
latter veins was traced inside the
JohnstoWn south side line. and the east
end inside the Pennsylvania north side
line.
The witness next described three
veins east of the east fault. These
veins, with those just mentioned, are
all east and west veins. The most
northerly of them is cut off at its west
end by the east fault at a point approx
imately opposite where the east end of
the north connecting vein enters the
west transverse fissure or fault The
other two lie farther to the south, the
most southerly being in Michael Dewitt
ground. This vein, the witness said, is
known as the Windlass vein, and is de-
veloped at the surface at the mouth OF
the Michael Dewitt shaft.
The witness also pointed out two
other little veins on the map.
Mr.. Hayes described the faults on the
apex map next. He said that the
apeXes of the faults show on the sur
face in the Michael Dewitt ground. AT
the south end there are three streaks.
The witness indicated the Johnstown
discovery point on the apex map. 1t is
in the southwest corner of the Rarus
claim. The witness said that he located
the discovery point himself by sur
vey, as it was fixed in the patent.
What can be seen, as to the ground,
at that point?" asked Mr.. Scallon.
Il object" said Mr.. Hughes. THE
evidence is not material. And the pat
ent is better evidence"
Mr.. Scalon stated to the court that
.ne plaintiff had sought to show that
the discovery point was covered up.
The plaintiffs witness, Mr.. McFarlane,
had said in his testimony that it is Gov
cred by dump. This had nothing to
do with the patent, Mr.. Scallon argued.
He said that the plaintiff had tried to
establish the dump and that the de-
PENDANT had a right to contradict the
plaintiffs evidence.
The objection was overruled and ex-
cepted to.
The discovery point is situated Il
feet south of shaft No. 3, at a place
where the ground is level and all eX-
posed. There are no rocks in place
exposed and no developments" an
swered Mr.. Hayes
Have you shown that spot to others
and to whom?" said Mr.. Scalon.
Mr.. Hughes objected to the question
and the court sustained the objection.
Then Mr.. Scallon explained that the
question was made in order to pave the
way for other witnesses to testify as
to the locality of the discovery point.
The court then reversed its ruling and
told the witness to answer the ques-
ton.
The witness named a number of per-
sons to whom he had shown the dis
covery point
After this the witness took up the
north connecting vein and traced it
through the various levels by means of
a cross section map and the model. He
took it down to the 800 level and across
the controverted ground from west to
east. At it's east end it is cut off on
the various levels by the west fault,
said the witness. He described the
slopes and workings upon it, and said
that a north branch of it on the 600
level is also cut off by the faults. The