Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-03-24
DRIFT IN THE
LITTLE NINA
Afraid it Would Come Out Too
Far South.
EVIDENCE OF ]. H. BURNS
Quoted the Shift Bosses-Argument
for Dismissal in Nipper
Case.

The hearing of the application of
Arthur P. Heinze for the appointment
of a receiver for the Nipper mine in the
action entitled Edward Hickey and
others VS.. the Parrot Mining company,
which was commenced in department
! No. 2 of the district court a few days
ago and continued without completion
on, account of the death of viii Dixon,
! was resumed this morning with James
H. Burns on the stand as a witness for
the plaintiff. He proved to be a star one,
as he has been working in the Little
Nina property. which belong to the Par
rot company.
The action is one in which the plaintiffs
claim that the veins of the Little Nina
| apex within the lines of the Nipper, and
that they are therefore entitled to follow
them on their downward course.
Burns testified that last December,
! while working in the up-raise that was
being made from the 600 to the 40O-foot
level of the Little Nina. he had heard
! the shift bosses utter some remarks re-
garding the course Of the vein on the
hanging wall. These bosses. he said,
were Al Riley Inc Henry Blue. He had
also heard superintendent O'Neill state
in his presence that he thought the drift
at the 600 was not being driven in the
right direction to catch the vein for
which they were looking.
The witness vas questioned by Attor-
ney Mediation for the plaintiffs.
"What did either of these shift bosses
say to you with reference to the making
Of these up-raises on the vein?" asked
Mr.. Mediation.
An objection to the question was made.
but it was overruled.
Anyl-,&1,, ~F%o,. + ,x,o%k ~ x,or1y %hnvo -
answered Burns, "Mr. Riley said to me:
Jim, you want to keep down there ON the
foot. This is a kind of a show-up prop
osition and if We keep up Well come out
too far south-it would not come out
in Little Nina ground A few days later
l had occasion to go into the office for
candles. Riley was there and asked me
how things were going down in the mine.
/ told him all right and he said we
should keep down ON the foot. I told
him ! thought the lead was on the hang
ing wall and he said we had to go ac-
cording to the surveyors. He also re-
marked that a vein could be made almost
anywhere nowadays
The latter portion of the answer met
with an objection from Mr.. Walsh, ONE
of the Parrot company attorneys, but
the judge overruled it, saying as he did
so:
1.-THE answer is proper enough. I am
beginning to think that way myself"
Mr.. Burns then described the work.
ings Of the property and bowed to a
cross-examination which failed to matte
rally damage his direct testimony. He
sale that I'M drifting on the 600 the lead
had been Followed about go feet, at which
point the course of the drift a peer
turned almost at right angles in order to
catch a certain vein.
After the testimony of Mr.. Burns had
been taken the argument of the motion
made by the defendant on Thursday to
dismiss the application for the appoint
ment of the receiver was resumed.
Shortly before court adjourned for the
day the argument was finished and Judge
Clancy took the matter under advise
ment until April 8.