The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1911-01-30

I tcfeStS OF n NUMBER OF StothuolutFS !
the hope OF finding some way 10 rec
oncile the differences of the compan
les so as to save loss TO them. Thi
not being accomplished he finally &C
cepted employment 20 render such as
sistance as he could TO j. w. Walsh. o
Helena, who il the attorney I'm charg
OF the case. He said he did not pos
as a mining lawyer but had fair un
Outstanding of the case. Mr.. Wash
burn said the Butte Balk. COMPANY
had sunk a shaft down some l,4OO fee
near the center Of its property; tina
an OF the property surrounding tn,
Balaklava property appears To be own.
ed by the Anaconda company. or iti
allied companies; that while the b. 4
4 b. property is comparatively narrow
/ the Mountain chief property adjoining
TO which It is claimed the ore in ques-
ton belongs. is but little more than
a third of the width of the b. a H.
property; that the h. & b. has well de-
| fined veins upon it's surface and the
company had driven numerous cross
cuts and drifts I'm its property, oper-
ating from its shaft and In the lower
levels had encountered some very rich
ore. some of which had been mined
and shipped; that the Anaconda COM
pany, or some of its allied companies.
had mined out a large amount of ore
from h. * b. ground, alleged To be far
in excess Of the amount of ore taken
out Of its property by the b. 4 b. COM
pany itself that on the Mountain
Chief property adjoining the h. & b.
on the north il Is claimed there is a
large vein showing on the surface
which years ago had been mined down
for several hundred feet. work upon
which had ceased and the shaft and
drifts allowed TO fail into decay. That
when the b. & b. company struck rich
ores i'm its lower levels. the Anaconda
company claimed the ore, contending
that its surface vein extended into the
earth and took strong lateral turn,
and then dipped again more vertically
and that the II. & h. company was
mining on that vein. The b. & b.
company claims the contrary and that
it was mining on veins belonging To ii
and which were within it's own boun-
diaries. The ground is full Of veins
with different strikes and dips, the ore
in question being a substantially YER
teal vein with northwest and south
west strike When the suit was
brought "A restraining order was is
sued ex-parte, without any hearing,
TO prevent the removal of more ore
from the vein of the b. & b. ground
until the ownership should be deter
mined, and this order was made To APP
ply 10 both parties. so far as the b. &
b. was concerned The hearing on
Monday and Tuesday was on the petit
ton made coincident with the bringing
OF the suit for temporary injunction,
Il seems 10 be the practice that IL there
is substantial dispute as To owner
ship, such injunction upon the furn-
ishing Of a bond. is usually granted
upon the theory that the ore still re-
mains in the ground and can be ulti-
mately taken out by the owner when
such ownership is determined where
as irrespectable injury might lnsue TO
one party or the other by it's removal
on the hearing just had the title To
the respective properties was stipulat-
ed and the Anaconda company pre-
sented its evidence 10 show the basis
of its claims to own the vein in ques-
ton i'm the Il. q y. property as the
one apeXing on the Mountain Chief
property. The evidence was largely
confined to mining biologists i'm the
employ Of the Anaconda company who
testified to this being the Mountain
Chief vein and gave their reasons for
it. Mr.. Washburn said that upon con-
sultation between counsel and the Of
fcers Of the B. & b. company there
did not seem 10 be anything TO be
gained at this time by the introduce
ton of evidence, it being deemed pref
cradle 10 wait until the final trial
upon the merits some weeks hence. so
the temporary injunction was issued
as a matter Of course; operating I'm
effect TO continue the present restrain
ing order. The b. & b. company has
not yet filed any answer, thirty days
time being given in which 10 file an
answer. II will answer the complaint
and put in issue the claims Of the
plaintiff and doubtless will make claim
for the ore removed by the plaintiff
from its property. Asked as to his
opinion as 10 the ultimate outcome of
the case Mr.. Washburn said = would
be wholly improper for him To give
such opinion. He would say nothing
further than that IT runs against his
notion of things TO have property Of
great value transferred from the APP
parent and presumptive owner by the
oath of high salaried witnesses in the
employ of the claimant.