The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1903-12-02
Second Witness for De-
fense in Pennsylvania
Trial Testifes.
HEARING PROGRESSES
Akers Opposes Heinze's
Theory of Veins in
the Ore Bodies.

VIM. A. Akers, the second expert wit
ness for the defendants, the Boston
Montana company and several of its Of
fcials, in the contempt proceeding before
Judge Clancy, reached the stand this af-
ternoon. The first expert for the defend
ants, Lee Hayes, completed his evidence
at noon.
Mr.. Akers disagreed with the Heinze
theory of the veins in the Pennsylvania
claim as decidedly as did Mr. Hayes, and
took the ground that the blanket vein"
falls long way short of crossing the
claim and embracing all Of its mineral
deposits
Akers' View.
The Heinze witnesses took the vein
which formed the outermost boundary Of
Heinze's injunction tract down the "a
raise on the dip to the southwark across
the claim, and brought all the veins south
of the point at which the injunction line
was drawn in 1899 under its ample folds
Mr.. Akers testified today that the az
raise was sunk to the 400 Snohomish level
at the time of the Pennsylvania trial, and
went down that far on the Johnstown Dis
covery or blanket vein," so-called by the
Heinze people.
He took the position, however, that the
winzc or raise was afterwards sunk to its
present level OH different vein entirely
vein that comes up from below and stops
the "a raise vein in its course downward
and cuts il off.
No. Vein.
The vein which is thus described as
coming up and cutting off the injunction
boundary vein is called No. II vein, and
the witness testified that the two veins
further SOUTH called the No. and No. 2,
which Heinze is trying to include under
The apex of the blanket vein, are inde-
pendent of the latter and pass toward the
surface south of the point where the in
junction vein is stopped by the No. 10
vein. ...
Hayes Still on the Stand.
When the hearing opened this morning
Lee Hayes, the first expert witness for the
defendants, was still OH the witness stand
undergoing cross-examination by Mr..
Denny for Heinze.
Mr.. Denny turned his attention to the
No. vein on the Berkeley 400 level and
inquired what its dip was. The witness
replied: ...
About 70 degrees south"
"What dip. has No. II vein as shown
on glass plate No. 40 of the model?"
about 6s degrees" was the reply.
"Are not the and IL veins painted
OH this model practically PARALLEL"
"There is little divergence between
them"
There is no development between the
4oo-level of the Berkeley and the 600 Penn
sylvania?"
NO"
what distance is there between the two
points?"
about 600 feet"
Mr.. Denny took up cross section "B E
H." which was put in evidence by Heinze,
and asked questions about the disputed
ground with the aid of it, After that he
got out the plan map of the defendants,
which was brought into court yesterday
by the defendants, but which was not used
because the defense preferred to use the
plaintiffs plan map.
Levels and All Workings.
Mr.. Denny asked the witness if there
were workings in the ground not shown
on the defendants plan map, and the
latter replied that the map showed the
levels and all their workings, which was
the practice of map makers.
isn't this plan map an old copy?"
the lawyer asked.
mo, sir; it was brought up to date
about month ago." was the witness re-
ply.
The witness testified that there were
some intermediate workings which were
not shown on the map, and the lawyer
said: "Well, I'll ask you to put these
workings on a map so ! can see them"
Certainly; am perfectly willing to do
that" said Mr.. Hayes.
There was a discussion of why the de-
fense had preferred to use the plan map
of the plaintiff, and Mr.. Forbis for the
Boston & Montana company, said that he
was perfectly willing to use his own plan
map, if the opposite counsel found any
objection to the defense using the Heinze
map. The reason the latter map had been
used in preference to that of the Boston
& Montana company was because it was
drawn in much more distinct colors.
Exchange Of Compliments.
"Well you haven't got some things on
YOUR map that are in the ground" said
Mr.. Denny.
We've got more than you have on
yours" Mr.. Forbs replied
well, that's all right but your map
doesn't show everything" said Mr.. Denny.
Neither does yours" returned Mr..
Forbis.
Mr.. Forbis then announced that he
would prefer to use his own plan map
thereafter, and that drawing was hung up
and offered in evidence.
Mr.. Denny objected to its introduction
on the ground that it was not complete,
but the court overruled the objection.
Mr.. Denny then cross-examined the
witness about the claim lines as shown on
the map, and about other matters, and
E;,.al