The Anaconda standard., 1899-08-15
BIC MINING CASE ON TRIAL
Another Group of Noted Geolo-
gists and Mining Experts.
KNOWN THECOUNTRYOVE
They Will Know Each Other Better
and Respect Each Other More
When They Get
Through.

On Friday last the case of the Mon
tana Ore Purchasing company agains
the Boston & Montana was called fol
trial in the Second judicial district court
presided over by Judge Clancy. The
plaintiff was at once called upon tc
meet motion to dismiss the action
AS the suit was originally brought il
| was in the nature of a double action
an action at law to recover 100000
damages, the value of ore alleged to
have been taken from plaintiff 5
ground; and bill in equity to quiet
the title to the property in controversy
and settle all conflicting claims there
to between the parties. For some rea-
son best known to themselves the
| plaintiffs attorneys had dismissed the
| legal cause of action, and stood upon
the equity suit alone. The difendant's s
attorneys took the position that the
| plaintiff had no standing in the equity
| proceeding until it had first establish
ed its title at law. The fear of the
defendant seemed to be that in an
| equity proceeding entirely disconnect-
| ed from an action at law, it might be
deprived of a jury, equity proceedings
under the old system Of practice be-
| ing tried by the chancellor alone. This
| fear, however, seems to have been
| groundless, for the judge overruled the
motion, but at the same time assured
| the defendant of a jury trial if de-
manded.
The pending suit, as already intim-
ated in these columns, is one of the
very greatest importance and interest
1t is not an easy matter for an out
slider to learn the precise question of
mining geology involved, but 1t is be-
lieved that in a general way the case
will turn upon the zone theory versus
the theory Of separate Lodges; that the
plaintiff will claim everything within
certain mineralized zone, no matter
how many lodges it may contain, while
the defendant will contend that each
ledge is to be considered separately.
The proper presentation of such a
case calls for the very highest talent
in mining geology and engineering. Ev-
identity the parties fully appreciate this
fact for the array of expert witnesses
assembled is a truly formidable one.
First in order on the plaintiffs side
stands George H. Robinson, formerly
of Butte, but now of Salt Lake City,
Utah. This gentleman has had gem
eral charge of the scientific features of
the plaintiffs case. Those associated
with Mr.. Robinson express unbounded
confidence in his technical and pract
cal knowledge of mining geology. and
also in his commanding intellectual
strength; some of them declaring him
to be one of the strongest men in the
United States. His practical expert
ence is said to have been of the broad
est and most comprehensive character,
embracing nearly the whole of this
western mining region. and giving him
firm grasp upon Its varied geologi-
cal conditions. AS long ago as 1879
Mr.. Robinson was prominent min
ing man in Leadville. Col, where he
directed the operations of many lead
ing mines. He was at one time as
sistant manager of the Montana Min
ing company. He is now, 1t is be-
lieved. manager of the Mammoth mine
in Utah and all of the great De Lamar
properties, both in Utah and Nevada.
He is also said to be operating extern
sively on his own account in the Tin
tic and Mammoth districts of Utah.
He is said to be an untiring worker
with literally no end of physical and
mental energy. If what his associates
say Of him is anywhere within bounds
there can be no doubt that the scien-
tific side of the plaintiffs case Is in
good hands.
A second expert of note on the plain
tiff's side is Walter S. Kelley, manager
of the New Elkhorn Mining company
in Jefferson county. Mr.. Kelley is a
very prepossessing man and creates
most favorable impression upon all
who meet him. He is said to be a
thoroughly educated mining geoogist
with degree from an eastern school
of good standing. He has had large
experience as practical mining man.
and has also figured prominently as a
mining expert, having been engaged in
the Bell-SpeCulator and the Niagra-
Blackjack cases, besides many smaller
ones.
Professor James W Neill of Salt Lake
Is another eminent man on this side of
the case. He Is a graduate of Frei-
burg, and has had charge Of a number
Of large smelters and important mining
operations. He is at present manager
or the United States Mining company
at Bingham, Utah. 1t is said that he
has never made a specially Of expert
Ing until recently. His abilities,
though, are pronounced of a very high
order
Frank L. Sizer of Helena, but former
~ of Leadville, is another of the plaint-
ifs experts. He was formerly man
aser of the Empire Mining company of
thiS state. and is now consulting engin-
eer. He is reputed to be man of abil-
lty and large experience
Still another is Mr.. Palmer. This
gentleman was for % years chief en-
gineer of the great Ontario mine at
Park City. Utah. He has had a quar-
ter of century's practical experience
as mining engineersand general ex-
pert
Plaintiff also has engaged James Nc
Farlaud OF this gentleman the Stand
ards representative has not been able
TO learn anything definitely, and he
viii have to be judged by the company
he is in. which seems to be altogether
GneXCeptionable in it's way
turning to the defendants side. we
find another brilliant and able group.
At the head of these is very properly
to be placed Clarence King. who was
casually mentioned in connection with
The Anaconda -Colusa Parrot case. Prob
ably no man in the United States is
more widely known or stands higher
as mining geulogist and engineer
than does Nj. King His career is in