The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-06-24
ORDER OF THE COURT
GERTIE VS.. HECLA CASE
INSPECTION BY GERTIE LIMITED
TO NO. 8 TUNNEL OF THE
HECLA.

The formal order of Judge Robert
y. Dunn in the case of the Gertie
Mining company against the Hecla
Mining company was issued ON June
I19 and filed June %. although the
parties to the order were orally APP
prsed of the substance of the order
several weeks ago. The action was
brought on petition of the Gertie com
pany for an order of inspection and
survey of all the workings of the Hec-
/ la mine lying east of the main shaft
the plaintiff alleging that the defend
ant company had trespassed upon it's
ground and removed ore therefrom
/ The Gerties company was represented
/ in the hearing by Walter II. Hanson
and the Hecla by John u. Gray. The
petition of the plaintiff was supported
10y affidavits of c. f. O. Merriam and
Irving Anderson. mining engineers and
the answer of the defendant had at
tached ahdavits of James r. McCar-
thy. manager of the Heca; w. Earl
Greenough. mining engineer and L. +.
Hanley. secretary of the company In
denying the petition of the Gertie
company Judge Dunn issued the fol-
lowing order:
Order of the Court.
That sometime prior to September
80 1910. the defendant extended
tunnel known as Hecla No in an
easterly direction. and the said tunnel
was driven for some distance beneath
the surface of the Gertie lode claim,
the property of the plaintiff That
that portion thereof so beneath the
Gertie claim crosses through the cor
ner of said claim and from that part
of the Burlington lode mining claim
west of the Gertie to the portion of
the Burlington claim east thereof, and
that no work has been done beneath
the said Gertie claim since prior to
the 3Oth of September, 1910. and no
mining works extended therefrom
THAT the plaintiff is given the right
TO make an inspection and survey of
beneath the surface of the Gertie
claim. That the said survey may, if
the plaintiff desires. extend from the
portal of said tunnel to the face there
of in the Burlington claim but shall
not extend to the workings from the
said No tunnel.
"The court further finds that the
Hecla mine consists of a large number
of mining claims in which are several
veins, and that to permit a general
survey and inspection of the property
of the Hecla Mining company east Of
its main working shaft or of the said
would under the showing be burden
shaft would under the showing be bur
densome and unjust to the said de-
PENDANT.
THAT plaintiff has wholly failed to
show any right to an inspection of any
other than the said No 3
tunnel, and has failed to show by vir- |
tue of what claim. if any, it has the |
right to inspect any portion of the |
property of the Hecla Mining COM
pany other than hereinbefore specif- !
eally referred to.
1.-THE court further finds that the |
showing of the plaintiff wholly fails
to disclose where the discovery vein of |
the Gertie lode claim, or of any other
ode claim of the plaintiff. is, or in
what direction it strikes. or in what
direction it dips; and wholly fails to
show under what claim of right it
could assert any rights extralaterally
against any of the mining claims or
property Of the Hecla Mining com
,any; and wholly fails to set forth the
planes within which it asserts or could
~ virtue of any discovery vein assert
my rights outside the boundaries of
Is mining claims.
ut is therefore ordered that the
PLAINTIFF be given the right to make an
Inspection and sampling of that por-
ion of the No tunnel extending be
leath the surface of the Gertie claim
nd to inspect the same to the face
# said tunnel and to survey the said
unnel if the plaintiff desires. from the
,ortal to the said face in the Burling-
on claim by its most direct route.
"Such inspection shall be made up
N notice to defendant and Within
wenty days from the date of this or
Ter
"As to the inspection, survey or
of the other workings Of
he Hecla mine the petition of the
,laintig is denied"