The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-16
M. o. P. Company Gets the Best
OF the Courts Rulings.
CONVENTIONS OF DEFENSE
Judge Clancy Decides Several interest
ing Questions o. Law in Favor o. thu
Montana Ore Purchasing Com
pany-The Days Testimony.

we're interesting only from a lawyer
point Of view. A number of pretty
questions of law were raised and ar
sued at length by the attorneys and
every one of them was decided in favor
of the plaintiff, the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company, by Judge Clancy
The main contention of the defense
that the plaintiff has no extra lateral
rights to the vein in its ground, was
involved in one of the questions raised
yesterday when the defendants object
ed to the Introduction by the plaintiff
Of evidence to prove the location of the
Rarus lode claim, of which the Johns
town portion involved in the case is a
part.
The greater part of the days session
of court was taken up with the argu-
| ments on the objections, and the
courts ruling in favor of the plaintiff
seemed to give an indication of how
the main question will be decided when
it is presented for determination by the
| trial court.
The Montana Ore Purchasing COM
pany yesterday increased it's strength
| of legal talent in the case by the ad-
| dition of c. J. Hughes of Denver to its
| list of counsel.
When the trial of the case was re-
sumed yesterday morning, Judge Me-
| Hatton presented the law relating to
| the admissibility as evidence of certain
| records of the old probate court, and
| the objection made to them on Monday
| was overruled. Some other papers
which had been offered and objected
| to were Withdrawn. The offer of the
| plaintiff to introduce in evidence the
location notice of the Rarus lode
claim, which had been objected to on
the ground that it was incompetent
| irrelevant and immaterial was next
taken up and Judge Mediation argued
in favor of the admissibility of the no.
| tice. He said the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company did not base it's claim
of ownership entirely on the allegation
| that the piece of ground in controversy
| was a portion of the Johnstown lode
claim and which was purchased by the
| Rarus. If the plaintiff has any other
| source of title which adds to the JOHNS
| town deed the court is obliged TO con-
slider it,
1t is commended by the defendants
| attorneys that the deed to the Johns
town portion of the Rarus claim con-
veyed nothing but the ground within
| it's boundaries and gave the plaintiffs
| no extra lateral rights, and the Ralus
| location notice was offered in evidence
by the plaintiffs for the purpose Of
| establishing their right to extra lateral
rights and the right to follow the vein
| in the decided portion throughout its
entire depth and dip. In his argument
| on the admissibility of the evidence,
Judge Mediation said the court should
| take into consideration all the circum-
| stances surrounding the execution of
| the deed. The parties We're dealing in
| mining property and it was their in
| tention to convey such mineral rights
| lN1vr ,tt,tr Il
| orally. The situation of the parties
| must be taken into consideration and
| the position taken by the defendants
that the deed confined the purchasers
to the vertical side lines of the grant
| is not tenable. Judge Mediation said
| the plaintiffs did not seek to reform the
| deed, or to make 1t more specific, for
| that was unnecessary; they asked,
however, that the deed and the intent
| of it be enforced, and that the plain
| tiffs' right to the ore bodies in ccntrO-
versy be quoted. The code provisions
relating to construction of deeds, and
| other authorities. were read.
| May l ask you one question, Judge
| McHatton?" interrupted Mr.. Patter-
| son.
Yes. sir
will you please state what title you
expect to prove by the location of the
| Rarus?"
IF you'll just listen" replied Judge
Mediation, I'll answer that question in
| my statement to the court"
| In 1879, said Mr.. Mediation, continu-
| ing his argument, the owners of the
| Johnstown lode located their claim,
which conflicted with large portion
! of the Rarus. The Rarus locators, as
a matter of law and fact, having the
older location, owned the greater part
of the ground covered by the Johns
town location. In 1888, a compromise
was effected between the Rarus and
Johnstown locators. The owners of the
Rarus owned the ground included in
the grant given them by the Johns
town. Their title to it had been per-
fectly good. Some kind of dispute had
arisen and the Johnstown gave the
Rarus deed granting portion of the
Johnstown claim. The Johnstown own
ers not only granted whatever interest
they had. but quit claimed all right
they might have had or claimed in the
ground. The Johnstown could grant
only such rights as 1t had, and the deed
only wiped out any controversy that
may have existed. If the Rarus had
any right it was certainly not wiped
out by the deed from the Johnstown;
it retained that right always, and the
deed from the JohnstOwn acknowledged
and confirmed it. The conveyance not
only quoted the title of the Rarus to
the ground, but gave to 1t in addition
may have had or claimed. The Johns
town owners We're at that time also the
owners of the Pennsylvania, and that
is a fact to be considered in the con.
struction of the deed as going to show
the intent of the parties and the con-
dtion of the property conveyed ana
of the grantors and grantees. The de-
PENDANTS admit that the plaintiffs are
entitled to the ore bodies within the
ground conveyed, and if the plaintiffs
are entitled to the ore within the
boundaries of the grant they are en-
titled to follow it wherever it may go.
Unless the defendants have the apeXes
of the vein, which they will not attempt
to show. they are not particularly con-
cerned in the plaintiffs title. The de-
PENDANTS cannot recover because they
are themselves not entitled to the ore
bodies in question, and the plaintiffs
are entitled to have their title to 1t
uuieted. whether thew have a legal title