The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-22
THE BIG SUIT GOES ON
Plaintiff Discloses It's Theory and
the Grounds of It's Claim.
ZONES, LODES AND LEDGES
A Glass Model in Court-James Mac
farlane on the Stand-Interest-
ing Testimony on Lode
Formations.

| involved in the mining suit between the
Montana Ore Purchasing company and
the Boston G. Montana is being fully
verified as the trial proceeds in Judge
| Clancys court. The statement in last
! weeks mining issue that a jury had
| been assured was erroneous. A jury
was denied, and the trial is proceeding
before the court alone. After num-
Der of strictly law qssstions relating
| to titles had been disposed of, some of
which may be important in the event
| or an appeal, the meat of the issue was
| reached. Both sides have made elab-
| crate prepare lions for the trial, each
| is represented by strong array Of
counsel, and the case is being fought
with vigor and acumen not often sur
! passed
The plaintiff has fully disclosed it's
| theory through the testimony of James
| Macfarlane, who is evidently presented
| as the chief witness upon that side. In
! his testimony he is aided by a very
| ingenious and apparently well con-
| structed glass model showing the work
| ings of the Rarus and Pennsylvania
| mines, besides numerous maps and
| cross sections. The plaintiff discards
| the single ledge or vein theory, and
| claims all of the ore bodies in contro-
| versy upon the alleged ground that
| they are included in a great lode which
| has its apex in plaintiffs ground and
| then dips to the south so as carry it
beyond the plaintiffs side lines and
| beneath the surface of the defendants
ground. The lode it is claimed con-
aims a number of different veins or
Lodges, all co-ordinated or connected
| and apexing together in plaintiffs
ground. This view of the case is fully
ga
Macfarlane. who gave his reasons elab-
| orately and in detail.
AS yet the defendant has not affirm
atively presented its theory, content
ing itself with an attempt to break the
force of Mr.. Macfarlanes testimony
by rigid cross-eXamination. To this
end he has been pressed closely with
reference to testimony which he gave
in the Dewitt case a year or two ago,
involving a portion of the same prop
erty, the purpose being. of course, to
show contradictory, or at least incon-
sistent statements. On this line the
defense claims a considerable meas
ure of success, in bringing out the
facts that since the former trial the
witness opinion has undergone a
marked change with regard to the
width of the lode.
For example, at the 600 foot level he
now makes the lode go feet wider
than he did at the former trial, while
upon the surface he narrows it down
considerably. The defense insists that
the purpose of thus narrowing the
apex is to keep it well within the
plaintiffs surface lines, while it is
spread out below ground SO as to in
clude larger body of ore. The plain
tiff denies this, Mr. Macfarlane ex-
planning that the change of his opinion
has been brought about by the devel-
opments made subsequent to the CIV
ing of his former testimony.
1t was also made to appear that in
the former trial the witness generally
used the term zone" while in this
one he employs the word "lode" to
describe the mineral deposit. Mr. Mac
farlane gives it as reason for this
change that there was much dissatis-
faction with his use Of the word Zone"
and that he therefore discarded it.
Evidently the defense is not disposed
to accept this as the only reason, al
though no indication has been given as
to the distinction that It will endeav-
or to make between a zone" and
lode The federal mining statutes use
the terms vein ledge" or lode
seemingly as synonymous terms, but
the word Zone" nowhere appears.
Speaking generally a zone seems to
be less clearly defined than a lode or
ledge. The latter has we'll marked lin
in walls of rock containing little or
no mineral of value. But mineral
lied zone would seem to extend as far
as the mineral could be traced, and it
would be well nigh impossible to say
where it terminated.
But be the distinction what 1t may,
Mr.. Macfarlane claims that he used
the word zone" in the sense of lode"
and it will be for the defense to show
that there was an Interior motive in
the substitution of terms. The line of
cross-examination clearly indicated
such a belief, and plainly showed that
the defense felt that the changes in
the testimony of the witness were all
of character to strengthen the case 1
of the plaintiff in this action. But Mr.. 4
Macfarlane parted well, and moth /
ing was brought out save the
changes and discrepancies referred to.
In fact throughout his entire testi-
mony he evinced much self-possession,
familiarity with the geological nitric
acies of the case, and a great deal of
native ability.
Mr.. Macfarlane was born in Scotland
and received an academic education in
that country. He was a railroad en-
gineer before taking up mining. AS a
mining engineer his education has
practically been in the field. For
number of years he was chief engineer
of the Anaconda company. He Is en-
gagged in mining enterprises on his own
account in Utah, and is a practical
mining man. He has also had large
experience as an expert in mining lit
igation. having been engaged in the
Bell-SpeculatOr. the Niagara-B ckrock.
and nearly or quite all of the so-called
"HeinZe cases" The glass model in
court, which has attracted much at
tention, is said to have been made by
him or under his directions. and the po-
clearly indicates that the plaintiff has
great confidence in his all around ca
pacity.