The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-18

ground, or the ground mentioned in the
patent. or the Pennsylvania lode claim.
He added several other particular
grounds of objection, and then said that
he would make one general objection TO
all the papers together.
He explained to the court that the
Pennsylvania patent was granted in
1856, and had already been admitted in
evidence, and that in order to esta bllsn
a title to the Pennsylvania claim that
could be connected with the deeds and
other papers objected to, it would be
necessary to establish a valid location
notice as a basis for them. This had
not been done and could not be done,
because the court had ruled the Penn
sylvania location notice out heretofore
Therefore the papers offered and OBJ
jected to were not admissible in evil
dence.
Mr. Scallon said that the papers had
only been offered to cover an objection
made at the time the original location
notice of the Pennsylvania claim was
barred from evidence, and therefore
there was no need of an argument
from the defendants counsel.
well, the objection is sustained
said the court, land the papers are eN-
cluded."
Mr.. Scallon then offered in evidence
the, two complaints in the two cases
brought by the parties to this suit in
the circuit court in 1897, in which The
Boston & Montana company was the
plaintiff These papers were offered to
show when this suit was commenced.
and to show that the defendant claims
the ground and veins in issue. Judge
Mediation said that no objection to the
admission of the papers for the pur-
poses described would be made. but
that their admission for any other pur-
pose was objected to. The court ad-
mitted the papers.
Mr.. Scallon then offered all the rock
samples of the defendant and the maps
and drawings produced by its witnesses
in evidence, and they were admitted.
Mr.. Scallon then asked the court for
an order allowing the defendant to
make copies of the plaintiffs stope
books. Mr.. Cotter strenuously objected
to this on the ground that the case was
nearly done and the defendant could
not use the copies in this case. Mr..
Scallon said that there We're Slopes
absent from the plaintiffs model and
that the copies We're wanted to investi-
gate that matter. The court said that
since some Slopes were omitted from
both models. he would grant the order.
Mr.. Cotter asked for copies of the de-
PENDANTS slopes, and the defendants
counsel promised to furnish them.
Mr.. Tower resumed his testimony on
direct examination.
He was questioned about a sample
that the defendants witness, Geologist
Clarence King, had testified was from
the brecciated matter in the fault crew
ice where the Tower sample came from.
He said that at the point in question
there is none of the soft material which
Mr.. King had called one of the two
kinds of indurated clay.
What do you say as to there being
any indurated clay in that dyke or
connected with it at all?' asked Mr..
Cotter.
There is no indurated clay there at
ALL said the witness.
The witness then gave evidence with
reference to the Pennsylvania No 2
vein, under the objection Of Mr.. Pat
terson, overruled and excepted to. He
said that there is a mere crack in the
No. s apex drift.
What do you say as to its being a
vein?' asked Mr.. Cotter.
at is not vein,' said the witness.
Have you examined the working
said to expose the apex of No. vein ?"
Yes
"Is there any,vein in that working?"
mo; only a crack"
what is in No. raise?'
I'VE object that this is not rebuttal,
your honor" said Mr.. Patterson.