The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-21

ter in summing up his argument.
His argument lasted for an hour and
a half ending at half past three. He
was followed by Mr.. Patterson for the
defendant.
IF 1t please the court. this is a, re-
markable case in many respects. /
doubt not that this case has hardly
ever been paralleled in the history of
mining litigation as respects the length
of time the trial has occupied and the
many difficult and complex questions
involved in it," said Mr.. Patterson.
He expressed the opinion that the
court would give its careful considera-
ton to the matters he would present
to attention in his argument.
He said that in no mining case ever
decided in this country were so many
and entirely distinct veins the subject
of controversy.
He recited the history of the conveyc-
ance of the decided ground Is or is
years ago, and said that whatever
rights belong to the deed of convey
and he denied that any extralateral
rights were given by the deed.
I'VE contend, also, your honor, that
there are no extralateral rights appur-
tenant to the decided ground for the
reason of the absence of any discovery
vein in the Johnstown claim, which
fact | assert was overwhelmingly es-
tablished by the evidence in the CASE
said Mr.. Patterson.
He asserted that the Pennsylvania
patent gives the defendant all right
and title to everything within its
boundaries extended into the depths of
the earth. and that before the plaintiff
could take pound Of ore from within
the Pennsylvania claim it must estap-
llsh it's right to it to the satisfa elton
of the court by preponderance of tes-
timony. He read a decision upholding
the legal principle enunciated.
''As to the No. 8 Pennsylvania vein
the south vein and all the veins east
of the faults, under this legal prnci-
pie, we say to the plaintiff, Hands off,
until you establish your right to them
by preponderance Of evidence" said
Mr.. Patterson.
The decided ground is an irregular
body and it's end lines diverge as they
run south. Mr. Patterson said that the
plaintiff claims that these lines should
be extended to the south coincidentally
with their diverging planes, but that
the defendant denies this and asserts
that the extended end lines should be
drawn parallel and never include more
than a thousand feet Of the veins in
controversy, which measure is the ex-
IRENE length of the apexes in the
plaintiffs ground. These extended lines
include between them the territory af-
fected by extralateral rights Mr.
Patterson discussed the law of Mon
tana covering this matter.
He maintained that Judge McHat-
ton. when presiding over the court now
presided over by Judge Clancy, decided
this question in agreement with the
contention made by the defendant.
He read authorities promulgating the
doctrine that the end lines of the space
covered by extralateral rights must
be parallel with the end lines of the
,i1;,, Lot, No 70
which the rights are appurtenant is
carved out of such claim.
Mr.. Patterson took up Surveyor Ba-
ker's testimony as to the Johnstown
discovery shaft, Mr.. Baker being the
witness of the plaintiff who testified
that he surveyed the discovery point
II years ago. and he said that is wit
| nesses, supplemented by Mr.. Baker de-
! clared that there is no discovery vein
or shaft at the discovery point. The
| discovery shaft and veins are myths,
| Mr.. Patterson said. He said that 1t
| has been and still is customary, for
| prospectors to take up and hold claims
without making any developments to
disclose a vein.
I'VE maintain, your honor, that
where there is no discovery vein there
| are no extralateral rights" declared
| Mr.. Patterson. He said that where
| the discovery lode crosses one end line
and one side line the law is that the
| length of vein that can be followed
outside the claim, on the theory of ex-
tralateral rights must correspond
| with the distance between the end line
| crossed by the vein and the point of
the crossing on the side line AS to
| other veins on claim to which be-
| longs extralateral rights, they can be
claimed outside the claim for a length
equal to the length of the discovery
mi &c
standard of measurement as to their
extralateral rights. and. where there
| is no discovery vein, no extralateral
rights as to them exist
There is no discovery vein in the
| plaintiffs ground, and Mr.. Robinson,
| who had managed it's mine for year
| and more, admitted that he never had
heard of discovery vein till this suit
was begun. But a discovery vein is
| prime necessity to their case, and they
responded to the emergency by invent
ing one. There was never a thing of
more perfectly imaginary character
than this discovery vein claimed by
| them" said Mr.. Patterson.
He said as to the two other veins
aside from the north connecting vein.
which does not dip into the defendants
| ground-that they cross the south side
| line at the east end of the JohnStoWn
claim, as admitted by the plaintiff. and
the north side line at the west end, as
| asserted by the defendants witnesses
and that this fact destroys their extra
| lateral rights, even if the two conten-
tons already stated failed. The con-
| trary contention could only be estab-
lished by a preponderance of evidence
by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff
has failed to do, said Mr.. Patterson.
AS to secondary deposition, he said
that the sample out Of which Mr.. Tower
Nr w RI
to admit that he took it from an ore
bin, and this fact proved that Mr.
Tower had sought, and sought in vain
throughout the mine for secondary ore
He found the sample in an ore bin
Who put it there? Where did it come
from? Oh. how diligent he was" said
Mr.. Patterson. Mr.. Patterson talked
for four hours. and when he concluded
Mr.. Hughes closed the plaintiffs case
speaking for two hours and half
Mr.. Hughes said that the locators of
the Johnstown claim We're entitled to
>tf,1,