The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-03
IN A DIFFERENT PHASE
Question of Larkin's Insanity
Was Disregarded. 49,
SNOHOMISH LODE CLAIMS
The Matter Of the Value of the Propertv
Taken Up Before the Referee-In
Support of the Intervenor's
Complaint.

The case of the Butte & Roston Min
ing company against j. f. Forbis and
others, IN which f. A. Heinze, as ad-
ministrator of the estate Of James Lar
kin, is intervenor, testimony in which
is being taken before Examiner Judge
Blake, has taken on different phase.
Since it began. two or three weeks ago,
about all of the testimony introduced
tended to show that Larkin was in
sane when he conveyed to the Butte &
Boston crtain interests in the Tramway
and Snohomish lode claims. Yesterday
the insanity question was disregarded
and the matter of the value of the
property was taken up. J. II. Trerise,
William O'Nell, M. A. Nonan and John
Devlin expressed their opinions as to
the value of the ground in 1892 and
1893. The examination went consider
ably outside of the bounds of the prop
erty involved; it went over into the
Minnie Healy and adjoining claims.
The testimony was in support of the in
tervenors' complaint.
Michael Nonan, an old-time mine
speculator and leaser of this city
thought that in 1898 the property in
is said to have received for it, He said
that he owned adjoining claims. He
also judged of the value of the Sno-
homish and Tramway by that of the
developed mines in the immediate
vicinity. At present he is leasing from
the Montana Ore Purchasing COM
pany
he had worked the Tramway in 1S96-9S.
In that time he took out about $500
tons of ore, some of which was rich
and some not so good. He shipped this
ore to the smelters of the Montana Ore
Purchasing company. Butte & Boston
and Parrot. He said that he didn't take
out all of the ore, stating that at pres
ent there was low grade ore in the
mine, which could at the present price
of copper, be prof ably mined. How
ever. the ruling price in 1898 would not
admit of profitable working.
Mr.. Forbis asked the witness if, in
1898. he did not base the value of the
Snohomsh and Tramway on his judg-
ment of the value of the other mines
that he did.
You did not know of any valuable
ore existing in the Tramway in 1892
''No, did not
us not a mine usually rated accord
ing to its product"
mot always
"When you leased the TramWay, was
there any ore in sight?'
mot above water"
WAS there any in sight after the
water receded?"
mo"
"Have you any objection. Mr.. Nonan
to saying what your profits were out
of the Tramway lease?'
II couldn't say before looking into the
fulIrnc IF was rOD Si6era h1p however
more than wages
THAT was from ore not discovered
in 1892
Yes. sir
/ John Devlin. one of the very earliest
settlers in these parts and who dates
his arrival and explorations away back
in the los, told about his discovery of
the ground which is now divided
among the Minnie Healy, Snohomish,
Tramway. MiIlsite. Brown Girl and eX-
tensions. In 1898 Mr.. Devlin owned the
Minnie Healy and now claims five-siH-
teenths of it. In that year, he said
there was a 200-foot shaft on the Min
ME Healy and another as deep in the
Tramway. In the latter mine there
were crosscuts north and south about
200 feet. In the south cut was lead
about 60 feet from the shaft. He de-
scribed in detail the character of the
ground and ore of the several mines
in the vicinity.
MI Forbis entered objections to the
questions intended to establish the
value of the Minnie Healy on the ground
that they were Irrelevant. and also OBJ
jected to those by which it was sought
to fix a value on the Tramway on the
ground that the witness had not shown
himself to be qualified to express an
opinion, and further that they We're
irrelevant. mmaterial and incompe-
tent. The witness thought that the
price paid for the property in contro-
versy was inadequate.