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

point out the portions of the map made
from his notes. He could not do this
because he was not familiar with the
map markings. This caused a hitch
in the proceedings.
The plaintiff had had no opportunity
to submit the map to its surveyors and
craftsmen, to determine that the maps
correctly represents the disputed
| ground and workings. The witness
could not locate his work in detail, so
he could not satisfy the plaintiffs coun-
| sci. Wherefore an understanding was
had between the opposing counsel at
| this point, that the map should be
turned over to the plaintiff for inspec-
| ton in the evening; and the witness
was excused with the provso that he
should be recalled.
The next witness was Lee Hayes. He
said he was a civil and mining engi-
| neer, with 20 years experience in his
profession. He graduated from the
University of Missouri and is the pos
SCISSOR of two degrees in civil engineer
ing. He followed civil and mining en-
2inering in Colorado from 1879 up to
two years ago, when he came to Butte.
where he has been ever since. He said
he is connected with the Butte & Bos-
ton and the Boston & Montana Mining
companies. He conducted an office of
his own and did a general civil and
mining engineering business in Colo
RADIO.
He said that he was acquainted with
the ground in controversy and surveyed
the Rarus workings in 1897. He resur-
veyed part of the ground gone over by
Surveyor Davis and found the latter's
work correct. He made all the sur
veys at and near the surface at the
west end of the Johnstown claim.
The maps of the defendant were made
under his supervision, and he testified
as to their correctness so far as the part
of the ground surveyed by him went.
The plating from the surveyors notes
was correct so far as he knew. The
maps were plated upon the true and
not the magnetic meridian. The maps
were all correct he believed. He de-
scribed what the different lines and col
ors on the maps represent He stated
that the dotted parts of the apex lines
on the apex map indicated that the
apexes were not developed as to those
parts. He said that the model repre-
sents in elevation what the general map
represents in plan. He testified as to
the correctness of the model.
What amount of geological study
and examination have you given to the
ground in controversy and what ex-
animation to the vein SYSTEM asked
Mr.. Scallon.
Il have made very thorough ex-
deposits for over year" answered the
witness
He said that he found on the surface
nowhere the outcrop of any vein, ex-
cept where DEVELOPMENTS have been
made. He found the vein showing of
itself nowhere. 1t is closest to the sur
face in the railroad cut on the Rarus-
being within three or five feet of the
surface there.
The witness described the north con-
Meeting vein as crossing the norrh side
| line of the JohnStown claim ait the west
| end of the claim. Il lUnS east, On 2
southeasterly course, across thu Johns
! town, Rarus and decided ground 10 ari
across the south side line of the Johns
1 town claim and ends in the west fault.
Il have no doubt that this is the
| same vein at the east as at the west, y
| declared the witness.
He described two veins that parallel
| this vein, starting and ending al the
| same points. These veins both end in
| the west fault. and diverge a little to
the south before their junction with it.
| The third vein has no name, because
| it is not connected with any under
| ground workings said the witness
He was tracing the apeXes. and he
referred to the most southerly of the