The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-07

for the 22o feet where it crosses the
Rarus?"
Yes"
The cross-examination ended and the
redirect examination was opened by
Mr.. Cotter
The witness testified that there are big
ore bodies east and west of the faults
connected all the way between by ore.
Mr.. Cotter here again asked Mr.. Pat
terson for the copy of testimony that
he had refused to- turn over at an
earlier hour After a refusal Mr.. Pat
terson let Mr.. Cotter have a page of it.
The witness explained in connection
with the testimony contained in the
page, read to him by Mr.. Cotter, that
his admission that a cerain vein on the
$50 Snohomish level might apex at the
mouth of the Michael Dewitt shaft was
made because it was a matter of indif-
ference at the time.
Mr.. Robinson also explained with ref
erence to statement made in his cross
examination that there is certain drift
that he had wished to extend to the
west. He had asked Mr.. Forbis to be
allowed to extend the drift, but Mr..
Forbs did not seem disposed to have
the drift extended. Mr.. Forbis, he ex-
planned, is a member of the counsel Tor
the opposing parties in the case, the
Boston & Montana company.
Mr.. Robinson explained what he
meant by a warped surface" He
said:
I'VE do not get our walls in right
line planes or true surfaces; but so
warped as to make all sorts of dips and
strikes without interfering with the
continuity of the vein."
What is the effect on the country of
the intercrossing of the east and west
veins and the transverse fissures?"
asked Mr.. Cotter.
1T caused a crushing of the ground"
What effect did it have on the depo-
stion of ore?'
1T caused much greater deposits
than there otherwise would have
been"
The witness said that the diagonal
vein he described in the Michael Dewitt
case was the vein called the Johnstown
now.
The -cross-examination was opened
by Mr.. Patterson, and he asked a ques-
tfon, which Mr.. Cotter objected to as
not being properly re-cross-examna-
ton. The attorneys argued the point
and the court overruled the objec
ton.
In this examination Mr.. Robinson
stated that in determining the position
of the apices on the surface he had
taken into consideration the position
of the veins $50 feet below the sur
face.
The witness read an extract from
Clarence Kings report on the Com
stock, citing an instance of system of
correlated veins forming lode, the
veins being very simple in themselves.
but much complicated by interlacing
assures.
Thomas M. Baker, ex-county sur
veyor, was placed on the stand by
counsel for plaintiffs, and after an OBJ
lection to the course taken in his ques-
tons by Mr.. Corbett, from Mr.. Seal
lon. Mr.. Corbett adopted another
method, but witness testified that the
location notice and the patent of the
Johnstown claim cover the same ground.
The witness compared the papers and
said that the paper descriptions of the
ground agreed He also testified that
the Rarus patented ground was carved
out Of the ground covered by the Rarus
location.
J. H. Trerise, a civil engineer, was
next placed on the stand. Mr.. Trerise
started to testify concerning the re-
suits of a survey of the disputed
ground that he had made in 1895, at
the instance and request of the Boston
& Montana company, when Mr.. Patter-
son objected to the testimony.
In answer to questions by Mr.. Pat