The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-19

to him to be read before being required
to answer questions regarding it,
Il hope the court does not think am
not treating the witness fairly" said
Mr.. Patterson
"Oh, no." said the court, and the Wit
ness was asked to answer the ques-
ton.
Just hold on a minute" interrupted
Judge Mediation.
We'll. I'll sustain the objection" said
the court. You are drawing conclu-
sions, and that is for the court to do"
Inc witness was referred to a number
OF other statements he had made in the
former case, with more or less positive
ness, as to the limits Of the zone, and
there We're no objections to the ques-
tions. The witness explained the off
ference in his testimony between then
and now by saying that his former
statements were justified by the devel-
opments that then existed, but the facts
were changed by later development
work. He was asked If he had not
changed his mind before as to the same
facts. and he said that was probably
the case.
Were you not asked at the former
trial if future development would not
cause you to change your mind again,
and you said you thought not; that the
development work had then gone so
far that you were able to form a very
decided opinion as to the limits Of the
vein?"
THAT was true, at that time. and /
had no idea that this other vein, Stree
discovered, existed at ALL" said the
witness.
IF in the future other veins are dis
covered, still farther south, You will
change the limits of the zone again and
take them in also?"
Yes, if they are found to apex in the
Rarus ground
The witness was asked to give the
width of the Rarus vein in the Harris
& Lloyd tunnel, and he gave it rs $50
feet. He was then shown a statement
made early in his cross-eXamination
that the width was 80 feet ait the point,
but he said the latter statement was
mistake, that he had either measured
wrong or misunderstood the question
to which 1t was an answer. The witness
was asked to give the width of the
Rarus vein at the east end line Of the
claim, but he evaded doing so by claim
| ing he was uncertain whether the So
called fiat vein and the Rarus vein
| separated at that point or not Ire said
| his examination of the later develop
| ment work had not been sufficient to
| form an opinion.
What is the width of the Rarus lode
at that point, excluding the fiat vein -
The witness said he did not know how
! fHucI there w dso VI tIit lldt NSlll 'Lu
| how much of it was Rarus vein.
Am / to understand you to say that
! you are not prepared to say and won't
! say that the fiat vein is part of the
Rarus vein or not?"
Il am not prepared to say that 1t is
! or not at that point
What causes you to believe that
there might be a separation Of the two
veins at that point?"
The witness made long and evasive
reply which did not answer the ques-
| ton.
rs not this the trouble" asked IIr.
| Patterson: You want the fat vein
when it affects this case, and you want
to leave it open where you can make
it part of the Rarus in the next suit
to be tried-the Michael Dewitt rase?"
The witness made some iaughi ~ re-
ply and then there was an objection
| and the matter was dropped.
An affidavit made by Mr.. Macfarla ne
| in the United States court in Deem
! Der, 1897, was next produced and sub
mitted to him, and after he had looked
| it over he was asked If in that aft 1avit
| he had not stated under oath that the
Rarus vein at the east end line was
from 100 to 200 feet wide; that there