The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-16


very simple legal proposition that had
been raised by the objection. Mr.. Pat
terson asked the court to come back
to the original question, and he said
the object of the plaintiffs in offering
the Rarus location as evidence was to
set up title different from that set up
in the complaint, so that if one should
fail they could rely on another
Mr.. Patterson talked about the al
legged ambiguity of the deed in ques-
ton and said patent ambiguity was
incurable and n latent one must be
pointed out and a reformation asked.
which was not done by the plaintiffs,
who do not claim that the deed is am
biguous and they must stand by it's
terms. which plainly limits them to the
described area of the grant.
Judge Mediation interrupted Mr.. Pat
terson to inquire If he did not know
that Judge De Haven, in the United
States court, had, in another proceed
ing, decided that the plaintiff had the
right to follow the vein beyond the ex-
terror boundaries of the grant. Mr.
Patterson replied that the decision of
Judge De Haven, if it was made, was
made on an application for an injunc-
ton in hasty procedure and it in no
wise affected the final result or deter
mination of the controversy. Both Mr.
Forbis and Mr. Scallon Interrupted to
say that the question of extra lateral
rights had not been raised before
Judge De Haven and the latter had
not passed on it.
Continuing his argument, Mr.. Pat
terson said there was no ambiguity in
the Johnstown deed. There was no
reference in it, directly or indirectly,
to extra lateral rights, but on the con-
trary it expressly limited the grantees
to the veins and ore bodies within the
n nSn &c Of 1,a
In answer to another question from
Mr.. Mediation, Mr.. Patterson admitted
that a deed described by Mr.. McHat-
ton. and somewhat similar to the
Johnstown deed, for an entire mining
claim would convey everything per-
tanning to it, including extra lateral
rights but a deed of that kind would
convey no extra lateral rights where
piece of ground was sold out of the
very center Of mining claim, where
it was the intent to convey a certain
area and no more. Mr.. Paterson said
the aim of the plaintiffs was to get into
the Pennsylvania ground by virtue of
the Rarus title if they could not get
in through their Johnstown title. The
Johnstown claim went to patent as an
entity by the consent and agreement of
the Rarus, and the latter never was
and never can be such a thing as
Rarus claim or location on that por-
ton of the ground covered by the
Johnstown.
AT the conclusion of the arguments,
which consumed the entire morning sas-
sion of court and part of the afternoon,
the court overruled the objection and
the location notice of the Rarus lode
claim was admitted in evidence. Sew
eral other documents, deeds, etc, were
admitted in evidence over the objec-
tons of the defendants.
A certified copy of a complaint filed in
the United States court in 1897 by the
Boston & Montana against the Mon
tana Ore Purchasing company was
offered as evidence by Mr.. Mediation
for the purpose, as claimed by him, to
show the Montana Ore Purchasing
company's right to the premises in con-
troVersy and it's right to follow the
vein and ore body beyond the side lines.
An objection was made to the offer on
the ground that the suit in the federal
court related to different property and
could in no wise be competent in the
present suit. Mr.. Mediation said the
paper was competent to show state
ment made by the plaintiff in that case,
the Boston & Montana company, which
practically recognized the right Of the
Montana Ore Purchasing company to
the ore bodies in question. 1t contains
an admission which, while not conclu-
sive, is a declaration of interest, and
shows that the Boston & Montana COM
pany always treated the Johnstown
deed as giving the PLAINTIFF in the pres
ent suit the right to follow the vein to
it's uttermost depth. The action in the
federal court was brought to enjOin the
Montana Ore Purchasing company
from mining in the same ground now in
dispute, and made no claim that the
company did not have the right to fol-
low the vein.
The objection was overruled and the
paper admitted in evidence.
r. w. Turner, civil engineer in the
employ of the Montana Ore Purchasing
company, was called as a witness, and
testified as to a lot of surveys he made
from which the maps used in the case
were made. On cross-eXamination
Mr. Patterson made a demand for Mr..
Turner's survey notes. and before the
court ruled ON it Mr.. Mediation made
counter demand that the defendants
produce all their maps, drawings. mod
els, writings of all characters relating
to the property in controversy and all
survey notes of the defendants en-
gineers, servants and representatives,
and all notes made by their witnesses,
whether such witnesses are to be used
or not, and all maps and rawlings and
notes, etc. relating to the workings of
the Pennsylvania and Michael Dewitt
lode claims.
L want to say" said Mr.. Patterson,
after Mr. Mediation had concluded his
demand, that l have purchased sever
al papers and magazines since l have
been in town which are not included
in your demand
1T IS the same kind of a demand
that you have made, and we ought to
be fair and impartial in this matter"
replied Mr.. Mediation.
At the conclusion of the talk by the
attorneys, the court ruled that the wit
ness should produce his notes, so that
he might be examined regarding them
and the correctness of the maps made
from his notes.
Turner testified that he made more
than half the surveys shown on the
maps. The witness was excused for
the day and instructed to bring his
notes into court to-day.
Eugene Thompson, the next witness,
testified that he made the bulk of the
surveys shown on the maps, including
the workings of the Rarus, JohnstoWn,
Pennsylvania, Mountain View, Smelter,
Smokestack and Michael Dewitt lode
claims.
Iron n