Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-06-25

witnesses upon the trial of the case.
The defenses made by the defend
ants in this action were three in num-
! Der. and in the judgment Of the court
absolutely antagonistiCal one to the
other. One contention was that run
ming in nOrtherly direction there ex-
listed lode. the apex of which was
wider than both claims. Another de-
! tense was that the vein testified to by
the plaintiffs witnesses, as existing
within the lines of the Canyon claims,
! split at point near the northerly end
line of the Canyon claim, a portion of
the vein passing on through the north
efly end line of the Canyon claim. the
other passing through the side line of
, the Canyon claim into and across the
Table Mountain claim. and that the
ore in dispute was extracted from that
portion of the split vein after it passed
! the sideline of the Canyon claim into
the Table Mountain claim. The other
, defense was that the strike of the
vein was across the Table Mountain
and Canyon ground.
! Witnesses for defendants testified in
! support of each one of these theories
1t is quite evident that the strike of
/, the lode could not be both in the di-
rection of the length of the claim. and
across the claim. Neither could there
exist lode. the apex of which on the
/! surface was wider than both claims,
and split vein whic. apexed for a
portion of the way in the Canyon
claim with one wing of the split vein
| passing through the side lines of the
Z! Canyon claim into the Table Noun
tain claim.
| If those witnesses of the defendants
who testified to vein wider than
both claims were correct. those who
testified to the existence of a vein
which split in the Canyon ground with
one part passing through the side
| lines into the Table Mountain claim
/ must have been incorrect, as we'll also
must those witnesses have been mis-
taken who testified to . vein whose
/ course or strike passed across both
claims. If the witnesses on the part
Of the defendant who testified to the
y existence pf a split vein We're correct.
: the witnesses who testified to q vein
running in the direction Of the mining
claims, the arCX Of which was wider
than both claims as we'll as the wit
, neSSeS who testified to the existence
! Of q vein that crossed on its strike
both claims, must have been mis-
taken: and if the witnesses who teS-
titled to a vein whose strike was
across both claims were correct the
witnesses who testified to the eXiS-
tence of a split vein or a vein runninS
with the claims whose apex was wider
than both claims, must have been mis-
taken.
The evidence of witnesses who tes-
tify as experts as to the existence of
of a vein. and as to its strike and dip,
is entitled to only such weight as are
the reasons uDOn which are based
their conclusions and theories; and
an examination of the testimony. in
the judgment of the court Will con
vince anyone that these different the
cries are founded upon speculation
rather than upon facts.
1t is undoubtedly true that the sur
face of that portion Of the Canyon
Mining Claim on the slope of the hill
below the apex of the Canyon vein,
and the surface Of the Table Mountain
Claim which IS lower than the Can
yon claim. contain more CT less min
eral. 1t may be. and probably is, such
ground as would sustain a mineral 10
cation, but that IS not the question
that was to have been determined by
the jury in this case. The question to
he determined by the jury was as to
( whether the ore in dispute was in q
vein whose apex was within the Can
Won claim or the Table Mountain
claim: and the determination Of that
question. if it ever entered into the
deliberations of the jury, was contrary
to the great weight and preponderance
Ct the evidence.
1t is strange indeed, if Murphy and
Beyers did not know Of the evidence
Of the ore body in question. and didn't
deliberately determine to take that
which they knew belonged to the
plaintiff in this action, that they
should sink their Wine through coun-
try rock, containing some little seams
# gypsum and possibly ore and to
the depth that they did, and then run
their cross-cut AS they did. not follow
ing vein but through the country
rock containing some little seams OF
gypsum and ore, to a point within a
few feet Of the place from which they
had stopped cut ore under lease of
the Canyon claim.
When sued by the plaintiff in this
faction. the works. as then existing
were a practical demonstration of the
ownership by the plaintiff of the ore
in qestiOn. 1t became necessary for
the defendants subsequently to do
other work to demonstrate some the
CRY unon which they could base a
claim TO this ore in question. That
was attempted to be done by the sink
ing oil another Wine. and that Wine
was sunk at point where the country
rock was largely impregnated with
gypsum and ore in the shape of small
seams. which were undoubtedly smaii
assures in the country rock caused by
disintegration of the country rock, and
I, were filled in with material soughed
off from the vein which apeXeS in the
Canyon claim.
A careful inspection of that Wine
= by the court with the Jury convinced
the court that no ledge or seam was
followed by that Wine continuously