The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-01-22

through its attorney, John P.
Gray, has filed an answer to the
suit of the Federal Mining Il
Smelling company in the Russell lode
apex case in the United States district
court for northern Idaho,
In the answer to the complaint the
Hecla contends that the United
States district court for northern Ida
no is without jurisdiction and that the
description of the Russell lode mining
claim, as given by the plaintiff, con-
flicts with areas patented by the Con-
soldated Extension company.
The answer denies that the court
has jurisdiction because this contro-
yersy can not be determined without
the presence Of the Marsh Mines
Consolidated, and in this connection
defendant says that the suit there
fore does not involve a controversy
solely between the plaintiff and the
defendant. but between the plaintiff
and the Marsh Mines Consolidated on
the one side and the defendant on the
versity of citizenship does not exist
to confer such jurisdiction"
The Marsh is said to be a Wash
ington corporation,
Says Description Incorrect.
The answer denies that a correct
description of the Russell lode has
been given, inasmuch as boundaries
are given which on the surface con-
flict with the Consolidated Extension
lode claim The defendant denies
that the plaintiff is now or for more
than 10 years or at any time for more
than three years been in possession
Of ore entitled to the possession of
the Russell lode and denies that
there is silver, lead or zinc vein in
the Russell lode. It denies categor-
ically that any vein apexes in the
Russell lode and that the Hecla has
secretly or otherwise penetrated the
Russell lode, "or into or upon any
vein or ore body therein"
It denies all allegation regarding
the removal of ore, the property Of
the plaintiff exceeding in value &c.
100000 or amy other sum.
The defendant asserts that it is the
owner Of all ores beneath the surface
of its several mining claims and de-
nes that its claim Is a cloud upon
the plaintiffs title to the Russell
claim or to any vein or lode of the
Russell lode mining claim.
Has No Title to Russell Lode.
The defendant admits that 1t has
no title to the Russell lode, but al
leges that it is the sole owner Of the
Orphan Girl, Muscatine, Muscatine
Fraction, Croesis, Burlington, Mas
cot, June, East Hecla, Croesis Exten-
sion, Saturday and Rooster claims, all
patented, and that no ore now being
; mined from the claims is part Of the
; Russell lode or alleged vein The
answer sets forth that on each claim
mentioned a vein of mineral bearing
rock was discovered upon the unoc-
cupied domain and located In COM
pliance with the law
The answer further states that the
Consolidated Extension claim was
surveyed, advertised and entered for
y patent without protest by the Russell
Lode Mining company and that the
area in conflict was patented and Is
part Of the Consolidated Extension
= mining claim, prior in time and min
ing rights to the Russell lode claim.
: The answer prays that the plaintiff
take nothing by this action and thai
t the defendants title to it's claims anG
: the veins and ores therein be con-
&c fimed and quieted and that defend
i ant recover its costs in the suit.