The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-17

| Mr.. Patterson offered in evidence the
| general plan map the apex map, the
| four crOss-section maps. the eight in
| dividual level maps and the model OF
| the defendant An understanding had
| been had between the counsel of the
respective parties that two bodies of
porphyry omitted from two individual
| plan maps of the defendant should be
placed upon the maps.
with the exception of two com
plants in cases between these parties,
and any matters that it may be neces-
sary to offer in connection with the
deeds we offered yesterday, should the
deeds be objected to. this will con-
cude our case" said Mr. Patterson.
1t was stipulated that the complaints
and the other papers should be con-
sidered as offered in evidence before
the close of the defendants case.
Counsel for the defendant then rested.
The counsel for plaintiff then called
Thomas D. Baker. a civil and mining
engineer, to the witness stand. and be-
gan their evidence in rebuttal.
How long have you followed your
profession in this county," asked Mr..
Cotter,
For 81 years." said Mr. Baker
Did you make the patent survey
for the Johnstown claim?'
Yes"
Ou were deputy mineral surveyor
at the time; were you?"
Have you your notes of that sur
vey?"
Yes. sir"
state where the discovery shaft was
located at that time
Il object, your honor. They went
into that matter in their evidence in
chief, and they can't go into it again."
when we tried to go into this mat
ter in chief they objected that it would
be time enough to locate the discovery
shaft by testimony when the point was
attacked by them, and upon that I'M
Outstanding this witness was with
drawn" said Mr.. Cotter.
The court ordered the previous evil
dence of the witness to be read. 1t did
not fully cover the matter, and the
court said that the defendant had put
in oral testimony about the discovery
point, and that it was proper for the
plaintiff to be allowed to do the same
The objection was overruled, and Mr..
Patterson took an exception. Mr.. Pat
terson also added as an objection that
the proposed testimony was secondary
the patent being the best evidence.
THE discovery point was $50 feet
east of the west line of the claim and
300 feet south of the north line" said
the witness.
What do your notes show as to the
existence of a shaft at the discovery
point at that time?' said Mr.. Cotter.
Mr.. Patterson objected to this on the
same grounds as before, and Mr. Pat
terson excepted to the ruling.
II found copper bearing vein there,
three feet wide and dipping to the
SOUTH said the witness.
What was the strike of the vein?"
'It was parallel to the north line
what opening, if any, was there
there?"
There was a shaft there, three by
three by eight feet
Mr.. Patterson here stated to the
court that he would like it understood
that he objected to all the testimony
on this subject, as that would save
continuous Interruptions, and the ex-
animation proceeded on that under
standing.
How did you locate the discovery
point?" asked Mr.. Cotter.
My chainmen measured the dis
tances and l took the bearings. said
Mr.. Baker
The examination was conducted
by Mr. Patterson. 49,
What did you say were the dimen-
sions of the discovery shaft?' said he.