The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-17

II think it was three by three feet
square and eight feet deep, but 1 d.
not remember. 1t may have been three
by eight feet square and three feet
Deep said the witness.
The witness said that he had beer
lately on the ground where the discov-
cry point was located, but that the
holes he found in the ground did not
include the discovery shaft. He did
not know whether the point was prop
| erly located on the apex maps of the
litigants or not, not having examined
the maps. He said he had not assayed
| the ore Of the vein in the shaft at the
discovery point. He next read his sur
vey notes, giving the courses of his
survey.
These courses agree with those of
the patent, do they note" asked Mr..
| Patterson.
Yes, SIR" said the witness.
He said that he had seen an opening
three feet wide, eight feet long and
three feet deep at or near the discov-
cry point, and that he could not say
it was not the original opening, though
he did not know it was.
The witness was excused and George
H. Robinson, one of the plaintiffs ex-
pert witnesses, took the stand.
Mr.. Robinson, did you hear the evil
dence of the defense to the effect that
the country between the north and
south assures is a north and south
lode?" asked Mr.. Cotter.
II heard some of the evidence" said
the witness.
Are you familiar with the area in
question:
Yes, SIR"
Mr. Robinson, from your knowledge
of this country and your experience as
a mining man, what do you say as to
that being north and south lode with
a west dip?"
II object to this. your honor. The
witness went into this matter at great
length in his evidence in chief, and
submit that it is not proper rebuttal
testimony" said Mr. Patterson
well, if your honor pleases, it seems
| to me that this is perfectly proper re-
buttal testimony. There has never
been word said by our witnesses that
this is a north and south lode There
was never a word of evidence in the
case about it until the defendants wit
ness. Mr.. Hayes, introduced it, All the
defendants witnesses gave opinions
that It was such. We think we have
right to rebut it now with our wit
nesses," said Mr. Cotter
The court called for the witness evil
dence in his previous examination and
part of it was read by Mr.. Patterson.
In this evidence the witness said that
passage could be had through the
faults on continuous ore at several
points. In it, also, the witness upon
being asked if miner would not To-
cate the interfault ground as a north
and south lode, said that if a miner
stumbled upon it he might go down
on it with the idea that he had a vein.
At the conclusion of the reading Mr.
Patterson argued that this witness and
other witnesses Of the plaintiff had
gone into the subject Of the ground be-
tween the faults exclusively. and that
no further testimony upon it should
be allowed.
Il still adhere to my view that Mr.
Hayes was the first witness to testify
that this is lode, and that being the
case, l submit that we have right to
rebut the opinions of the defendants
witnesses" said Mr.. Cotter
THE plaintiff has a right to put in it's
evidence first. That is rule of evil
dence Then the defendant puts in it's
evidence. Then the plaintiff has a right
to rebuttal of anything that's new.
The witness King testified to horse
between the faults, 1 think that is new
matter, and a proper subject for re-
buttal I don't doubt the whole eight
witnesses for the plaintiff will swear