The Butte inter mountain., 1903-12-01


why were you not in the Rarus during
that time"
Il was excluded by the Rarus people
during that time"
Then You haven't been able to get in
there lately!"
mo, sir"
And you haven't seen those work
ings!"
mo"
"Well, you are acquainted with the rest
of the workings, are you"
"Yes"
The lawyer then took up the No.
vein as shown OH the plan map OF the
plaintiff lIeinze. and the witness traced
il through the several workings which de-
veloped it, and said that it was developed
upon various levels in the Pennsylvania
claim from the 600 level Of the Rarus
downward.
Are you acquainted with the location
of the No veini' the lawyer inquired.
"Yes, sir" the witness replied.
"Where is No. vein with reference TO
No 4 vein and the Rarus workings"
at is in the southerly portion of the
Pennsylvania claim, south OF the Rarus
workings, although some Of the latter are
upon it,"
"Is it north Of No. 81
"Yes."
did you testify at the Pennsylvania
| trial 2"
| "Yes."
"You may state whether No. 3 or No. 2
vein had been developed or worked at the
| time OF the trial Of the Pennsylvania case
in 1907" the lawyer said.
"They had" Mr.. Hayes replied.
"Did you hear the testimony at the
| trial in ISoo!"
81 heard very little OF it, the witness
replied.
I "Ill ask you if these veins ever were
brought in question or mentioned at that
trial." the lawyer said.
| At this point Mr.. Denny, for the llcnze
side, interposed an objection TO the Gnes-
ton. He objected to it in SO far as it
might tend to establish connection be-
tween the ore bodies inquired about and
the "a raise vein, which he said had been
adiudged to belong to Ileinzc at the Penn
sylyania trial, and in so far as it might
tend to show that the apex OF that vein
was at some other point than that cstab-
lished by Judge Clancy, and in so far as
it might tend to bring up any question
that might have been brought up and adj
judicated at that time.
In reply to the objection, Mr. Forbis,
for the Boston & Montana company, rose
and said:
1--WE do not intend to show anything
settled by the decree in the case, as !
have often said before. We wish to show
that no witness at the Pennsylvania trial
testified to anything concerning either the
No. 4 or the No vein at that time, and
thai no witness then testified that those
veins were part of the "a raise vein.
"Wc want to show that it was not al
III Il time claimed that either OF those
veins belonged 10 the Johns.own Discovery
vein.
"Mr Denny seems to take the view
that if the Montana Ore Purchasing com.
pany now contends that these veins are
part of the "a raise vein, that should set
tie the matter, and that we cannot raise
questions concerning them and theii
identity and ownership
At the conclusion Of the attorney.
argument of the objection the court said
"lhe objection is overrulcd."
Then the witness replied that he coult
not say whether the No. 3 or No. 7 veii
had been mentioned at the trial Of tn
Pennsylvania case or not.
At this point Mr.. Forbs said he woult
like to use the general plan map of tn
plaintiff in putting in the defendants evi
dencc. He showed the plan map prepare
by the Boston & Montana company drafts
men to the court, and pointed out that tn