The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-12

moved the maps and locked them up.
The matter was amicably settled by an
order of court during the proceedings
of the afternoon.
When the case opened Judge Clancy
announced that he would reserve his
ruling upon the objections raised to the
introduction in evidence of the org
inal location notice of the Pennsyl-
vania claim and other papers to a
still later date. A ruling was expect
ed at this time. Judge Clancy sald
that he had worked upon the authorl-
ties a great deal since the objections
had been submitted, but that he would
have to work longer upon them, not
yet being clear as to the matter
After the courts announcement Will
lam Scallon, one of the Boston & Mon
tana company, proceeded to offer IN
evidence a number of deeds of the
Pennsylvania claim. This matter occu-
pied some little time, as the books OF
deeds of Silver Bow county. in which
the instruments were recorded, had to
be named by letter. The books were
piled up in court, and were referred
to by the attorneys.
Frank E. Corbett of counsel for the
Montana Ore Purchasing company OBJ
jected to the introduction of the deeds
and collateral instruments on the
ground that they were irrelevant and
immaterial for the reason that no title
to the Pennsylvania ground was as,
serted by the defendant in the plead
ings.
The court overruled the objection and
Mr.. Corbett took an exception. The
court made the statement that it
thought it right to admit these instru-
mems for he reason that the defend
ant could, later, amend its pleadtngs
to conform to the evidence.
When this matter had been settled
the first witness for the defendant,
Carl r. Davis, was placed on the wit
ness stand. His examination in chief
was conducted by Mr.. Scallon.
Mr.. Davis testified that he was a
civil and mining engineer, and that he
had made surveys of the surface and
the underground levels of the Rarus
mine in 1897 He said that he had IA
miliarized himself with the ground.
What notes and memoranda did you
rnake?" asked Mr.. Scallon.
THE usual notes." answered the wit
ness.
From your notes could map of the
underground workings of the ground
in controversy be made?"
THE maps in the court were made
partly from my notes."
DO you recognize the maps in
court?"
Il recognize the general plan map
as made from the surveys"
DO you know the lines of the deed
ed portion of the Johnstown claim"
Yes, sir; I am familiar with the
surface lines"
Did you have anything to do with
the preparation of the map?"
Il understand that good deal of
my work figured in it's compilation"
rs it correct as to those portions of
the ground that you surveyed"
Yes"
The witness testified that his surveys
had been checked and were correct
and that his notes We're at the de-
PENDANTS office at Butte.
The direct examination was brief,
and the cross-eXamination that follow
ed was conducted by Mr.. Corbett.
Mr. Davis then testified that he had
been an engineer in the employ of the
Boston & Montana company in 1897.
He said that he did not see all of the
ground represented in the map at the
time of his survey. because some of it
was closed. He did not see all of the
slopes. Part of the work was made
since his surveys The map was COM
piled partly from his notes and partly
from the notes of Lee Hayes, another
surveyor. -,..
Mr. Corbett asked the witness to