The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1913-08-28
GREEN CLEVELAND MINING CO,
AGAINST THE HEADLIGHT MINING CO.
INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS DISTRICT couRT-AFFDAv,T ON
FILE OF ALEXANDER MURPHY srockHoLDeR IN DEFEND.
ANT COMPANY AND LOCATOR OF MUCH OF ITS GROUND

on file In the Office of the clerk of the
court. Is herewith produced In full as
giving grounds of contention of de-
fendant company and possibly fore
casting other big litigation which must
necessarily be the outgrowth of pres
ent proceedings, whatever results of
the latter may be- 1t Is clear that the
apex question will feature prominently,
If not exclusively, and that millions Of
dollars will be inovlved. both on ac-
count Of ore already extracted and
that known to be in existence in place.
And 1t Is also intimated that some per-
sonal suits, reaching into hundreds of
thousands, will also figure as an out
growth later on.
Attorneys known in the case now on
record are Featherstone & Fox and
John III. Wourms for plaintiff and
Franklin Pfrman and James E. clyde
for defendant
Alexander Murphy being first duly
sworn deposes and says.
That he is duly elected, qualified
and acting director and vice president
of the Headlight" Mining Company,
Limited, the defendant in the above
entitled action, and makes this affida-
Wit for and on behalf of said corpora
ton; that he has been such director
and vice president for number of
years and is familiar with the work
performed by said defendant since its
Incorporation to the present time, and
with the affairs of the said corporation
herein and the affidavit of John II.
Wourms herein; that said defendant is
ing claim, mineral survey No. 1883;
the Grey Eagle lode mining claim,
mineral survey No. 1854; the Maggie
lode mining claim, mineral survey No.
1913; an undivided thirds interest
in the "Ophir" Fraction lode mining
claim, mineral survey No. 1914; the
Alexander Fraction lode mining claim,
mineral survey No. ....; and the
Roosevelt Fraction lode, unsurveyed,
situated in Lelande mining district,
Shoshone county, state of Idaho.
That the said Headlight Mining
Company. Limited. did construct a
tunnel from a point on the southerly
portion of the said Headlight lode
northeasterly direction through said
Headlight, Grey Eagle, Maggie, Ophir
Fraction and Roosevelt Fraction lode
mining claims, and into the ground
underneath the surface lines Of the
said Cleveland lode mining claim, Sur
vey No. 1043. thence extending west
erly out from underneath said Cleve-
land mining claim and into the said
Roosevelt Fraction and Ophir Fraction
claims, and also extending in a gener-
ally easterly direction out from under
meath the said Cleveland claim be-
meath the surface lines of the said
Cleveland Fraction claim, and out from
beneath said Cleveland Fraction claim
to and underneath the surface lines
of the Mammoth lode mining claim
claim is claimed and in the possession
Of the Federal Mining & Smelling
company.
Aff1ant further says: That 1t is not
true that at the time of the COM
mencement Of this action, and at the
time of the making of said affidavit
of said John H. Wourms, that said de-
fendant was working, mining or ex-
tracing large or any quantities of
rock, earth, mineral or ore from the
said Cleveland or Cleveland Fraction
lode mining claims, or that the de-
fendant threatened to continue so to
do or to remove other substance from
said claims or either of them.
That said tunnel commonly called
the Headlight tunnel. was commenced
fendant corporation, and was extended
to and underneath the surface lines OF
the said Cleveland lode mining claim
with the express knowledge of the
then owners of the said Cleveland lode
mining claim, and under claim of right
by the defendant prior to the year
1905; this work included crosscut
almost due north distance of over
ITS feet, underneath the said surface
lines Of said Cleveland claim, por--
ton of the tunnel easterly from said
crosscut a distance of approximately
IS feet. raise from said tunnel dis
tance of approximately so feet, and q
tunnel westerly from said crosscut a
distance of approximately 50 feet;
that during the year 1906 approxim
ately 100 feet Of said tunnel, extend
ing easterly further from said cross
cut, was constructed underneath the
surface lines of said Cleveland claim
with the express knowledge of the then
owners of the said Cleveland claim,
and under claim Of right by the de-
fendant company; that thereafter dur
Ing the year 1906 and 1907, the tunnel
westerly from said crosscut was ex-
tended further westerly distance OF
approximately 225 feet, extending un-
der the surface lines Of the Ophir
FfACt1On ana ROOSEVELT fTdClloH CidiiHS
and the said tunnel easterly from said
crosscut was extended further east
erly distance of approximately 200
feet. to within approximately 40 feet
of the east end line of the said Cleve-
land lode mining claim; in addition to
this work. four short crosscuts were
extended from the said easterly and
westerly tunnels during the time men
toned, said four crosscuts aggregating
approximately rs feet in length, and
a shaft downward of approximately a
distance Of so feet: all Of the said
work was done with the express
knowledge Of the then owners of said
Cleveland lode mining claim. and un-
der claim of right by the defendant
company.
That said defendant company main
tained possession Of all Of said por
tions Of said Headlight tunnel above
described ever since the construction
thereof; that during the period follow
ing the construction above described
and up to the month Of February,
1913. when further work was prose-
cuted IN said tunnel as hereinafter de-
scribed. said Headlight tunnel was