The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-30

answered the question by saying that
he did not think the vein apexes at the
point stated. He thought it's course
would be entirely different to the one
assumed. He said that the east and
west vein would apex north of the Sno-
homish The Snohomish is north of
the east and west vein on the $50 level,
but they unite as they go up, on ac-
count of the fiatter dip of the latter vein
unless they cross on the strike, by one
turning across the other at a right
angle. These veins, after uniting, apex
at the east at point 100 feet inside the
Rarus line and not within the Johns
town line, the witness said. The drift
on the Snohomish $50 level showing
the ends at the Pennsylvania east end
line. and westerly developments upon
them cease at that point.
The witness said he could not include
anything within the apex of the lode
inside the Rarus line that was outside
the Rarus south side line.
He stated that the apex of the lode
was 237 feet from the Rarus east end line
at the point of it's intersection with the
south side line of the Johnstown.
Are the Michael Dewitt shafts As and
35 and the raise north of the Michael
Dewitt shafts south of the apex on the
Rarus claim?' asked Mr.. Scallon.
Mr.. Cotter objected to the question
a proper subject for cross examination.
He stated to the court that the plain
tiffs had not examined the witness on
the subject in the direct examination
Mr. Scallon replied that the witness had
been examined upon the subject of the
location of the Rarus apex, and eX-
pressed the opinion that it was proper
to cross-examine in the manner pro-
posed. Mr.. Cotter said that the direct
examination had not gone into the
Michael Dewitt workings, and insisted
upon his point.
Judge Clancy said he was aware of
the position of the defendants on the
point, but that they had introduced
maps relating to the matter, and that
he thought it was properly the subject
of examination. He overruled the
objection. In response to question by
Mr.. Corbett, the court said that the
plaintiffs would be allowed a redirect
examination of the witness on this sub
ject
The redirect examination of Mr..
| Brown was begun at o'clock by John
| w. Cotter.
| Cross section Il" was produced. and
Mr.. Brown was questioned concerning
what it was intended to represent. Mr..
Cotter said that Mr.. Scallon had asked
| the witness if a cross section was not
like a blank wall, and then asked the
! witness II cross section map ala not
show the work on both sides of the
plane projected through the lode. The
| witness answered in the affirmative.
After having the witness describe the
| conditions of the vein on the Sno-
homish $50 level. as to strike and dip
Mr., Cotter asked him if his answers to
Mr.. Scallon regarding how it would
apex on the surface We're not based
upon the assumption that all of the
| conditions remained the same as the
vein went up.
When Mr.. Scallon asked you to fix
the hanging wall and you refused did
you refer to the surface or below"
asked Mr.. Cotter.
Below"
Did you say in either the direct OF
cross examination that the lines OIL
workings on the cross section plates ir
the glass model represent the limits OF
the Rarus lode?" asked Mr.. Cotter.
mo, sir" said Mr.. Brown.
Under the fire of rapid questioning
Mr. Brown described the workings or
the 500 level and the slopes connecting
the 800 with the 700 level. He said tina
the workings at the two east crosscut:
and the workings of drifts and IL a
their intersections with the crosscut
were east of the east transverse fissure