The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-05-11
MARNS' ENGINEER
MAKES BAD GUESS
Brooks Bald Errors Barred in
Silver King Case by Frank
Anderson.
ERRONEOUS MAP EXPOSED
JOINT SURVEY UNRAVELED BE-
FORE SPECIAL EXAMINER.

How c. P. Brooks. a mining engineer
employed by the Kearns' interests to
survey the Silver King mine at PARK
Guy, made erroneous maps and calcu-
Iauons was recited in the federal court
yesterday by Frank Anderson, another
mining engineer, who, with Brooks ano
l. e. Burton, made a joint survey OF
the underground workings known as
the Parsons stOpe, from which valu-
abe ore was taken, and for which an
accounting is now demanded.
With the commencement yesterday OF
the testimony of the three engineers
regarding their joint survey of the Par
sons Stopes in the hearing before Spe-
cla1 Examiner J. W. ChrlSTys the cru
clal period in the famous suit OF the
SILVER King Consolidated Mining com
pany against the Silver King Coalition
Mines company was reached. The tes-
Jimony OF these three men regarding
the extent of the Parsons stOpe, from
which calculation can be made as
10 the amount of ore removed from the
mine, VIII have a most important bear
ing on the suit.
request OF the attorneys for the de-
PENDANT company, and from the testi-
mony adduced at yesterdays hearing
IL would appear that il would have
the re-Survey had not been made.
After over a weeks elaboration over
their figures, Engineers Frank Ander-
son, - r BROOKS and L. q. Burton,
with their data and maps, appeared be-
fore Special Examiner Christy-
Anderson, whose former survey was
found, according to the testimony of
the different witnesses, to be almost
accurate, showed that the first big
mistake found in Brooks survey was
soon after entering the Parsons stope
on the 1,200-foot level. His survey
showed the roof of the cave raise ex-
Jremely low. In fact he represented
the roof of the raise below the line of
she waste material as given by An
GarSOn- a a . "a r.
we're taken in Chls raise, Brooks, &C
cording to Anderson, had to confess
tC his first grave error.
Find Another Discrepancy.
Wien the hanging wall drift was
reached another discrepancy was
found. A partial survey of the drift
was made and determined from the for
mer surveys Brooks refused TO come
10 an agreement with the other sur
Veyors under any circumstances, as he
commended that ne was not wrong
Ihere IS another big discrepancy
where the main chamber of the Par
sons Slope separates into two wings
near the crOSS-Sectional plane No
on the model. Brooks has the east
line OF the solid wall further to the
east than represented BY Anderson in
his survey. In the joint survey. some
points could not be reached which were
located in 1903, on account of the cav
ing OF the ground. Brooks and An
derson were unable to agree upon the
position of the solid ground, and their
notes will be introduced to show what
data each have and the determination
reached.
BY accepting Brooks figures at this
point 1t makes the Parsons stOpe con-
smaller. This point is right
near the tag raise where it is alleged
the three-peg ore was taken out, the |
richest found in the stope. As far as
data Is concerned, ii is said. upon re-
llaoIe information, that the figures of |
also.
Brooks ErrS 2S,5s7 Feet.
In his original survey Brooks gave |
the contents OF the stOFe as being 529,-
2SS cubic feet. By taking his same |
lines and going over each Station again |
the joint survey shows that the con-
tents should have been 557.S55 cubic /
-eet- This is a difference of 2S5S. |
feet shown in the face of Brooks own 4
1gues which he was compelled to aC- !
nit was a mistake Anderson's for /
ner survey showed the contents of the
stope 10 be 5S2.SO3 cubic feet. TAX
nS MS lines and going over each sta
ion again, II was found by the Joint |
survey that the contents should be 4
'SS,OS5 cubic -eet. The difference be-
he joint survey is 7S2 cubic feet. This
indicates a gain for the plaintiff COM
Dany.
There were several small drifts and
raises that were not included in the
former surveys. on the joint survey
The cubical contents of these places
were agreed upon and determined, and
amounted 20 6.1S3 cubic feet When
this IS added to the joint s,ASvey II
makes q grand total of 599,26S cubic
feet in the Parsons stOpe. The sur
veyOrs encountered some new work
N the Parsons stOpe, according to An
derSOn's testimony.
The joint survey Vas made in maps /
similar TO the ones presented original |
" by Anderson and Brooks on their own
There was also a cross-sec-
-ional exhibit offered yesterday which /
shows the difference between the
Brooks survey and the Anderson sur
vey, as modified by the Joint survey.
Beginning with section 8, Anderson
pointed out the discrepancies that had /
been made in Brooks former survey, |
The green lines in the map represent /
ING the joint survey show the roof /
higher than represented by Brooks |
The north wall of the stope is also a
little further north than represented
This IS where the cave raises come
INTO the Parsons stope, and where
Brooks had TO admit he was mistaken
As the survey proceeds further west
Anderson showed more differences In /
iection u, where hanging wall drift |
10 4 Is located, there is material |
Inference. Some points could not be
cached in the drift and the two en-
sineers could not come to an agree
nent- This still remains one of the
disputed points.