The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-06-29

Az, JUNE ~ W..
In 1915. in the case of Stewart Min
ng Co. v. Ontario Mining Co. Judge
McKenna said:
The court observed that the de-
cisive assignment of error was lodg-
ed against the finding that the vein
had not its apex in the Senator Stew
art Fraction claim, and, after refer
ring to the testimony of witnesses as
to the inclination and apparent strike
of the vein at certain points said:
But taken as a whole. the evidence
supports the findings. and the con
troversy arising on this appeal be
comes a question as to the correct in
depreciation and application of the
rule of law that should apply to the
facts of the case
In 1916. in the case of Jim Butler
Tonopah Mining Co V. West End
Consolidated Mining Co, Judge Aver
i'll made no remarks concerning ex-
pert testimony
In 1916, in the case of Butte & Su-
perior V. Clark Montana Realty Co.
Judge Bourqun said:
THE testimony is of five experts
for each party. all men of eminence
in geology, or mining engineering OF
both For plaintiffs are Greene Of
Butte, Irving Of Yale, Mead of New
York Searls of Nevada and Winchen
of Minneapolis. For defendant are
Finch of Denver, Emmons of Mime
sofa, Salisbury of Chicago, and Burch
and Urley of California There is
some conflict of facts and more of ar
gument opinions and conclusions
Most of it can be imputed to the com
pick geological and other problems
conditions underground. difficulties o.
observation, and honest differences of
Interpretation by reasonable and
learned men. But in instances parti-
sanship apparently impaired judg-
ment AS a whole, however the tes-
timony inspires confidence and de-
serves careful consideration,
THE court finds that the northerly
wall of the Rainbow apex crosses the
common side line 1910 feet from the
southwest corner of the Blackjack
and that the southerly wall so crosses
SO1 feet from said corner. For plain
tiff the testimony is that the latter
crossing is about 3OS-rather the
extreme and indefinite limit of the
naturalization which accompanies the
vein-tO 31l feet: for defendant
about 300 to SO1 feet All agree
there is no defined wall-that il is in
definite and leaves much to judgment
Considering the evidence in light OF
inspection and that the burden OF
proof is upon plaintiff, it is believed
that the concession of defendant is
more nearly right and as favorable t.
plaintiff as the facts warrant. The
exposure is in surface trench, and
it is difficult to distinguish vein mat
ter in place from mere seepage effecf
in adjacent country, whether of vein
solutions or surface waters, and per
haps mushrooming beyond the limit.
of the vein proper below. A shaft
might have contributed to accuracy
Finch testified that within the limits
of the 300 feet he included Is feet t.
the extreme limit of rock alteration |
with a few little seams in it to be |
consistent with the Interpretation Of |
a vein at other points This is ad- |
mirable frankness but imports that |
at vital points and to indefinite ex-
tent he characterized that as weir
which in his judgment is not vein. to
serve his client and avoid haphazard
of comparison. The difficulty is that
when an expert shades his testimony
upon the principle do ut des, partisan
ship is likely, if not certain. to favor
his client and the court can not de-
terminc TO what extent. inevitably
detracting from the weight of his
opinion"
In 1917 in the case of Geddes ct a
v Anaconda Copper Mining Co.. Judg,
Ross made no remarks regarding ex-
pert testimony
In 1917, in the case of Bourne
Federal Mining & Smelling Co, Judge
Dietrich said: 9
Upon the whole, the relation Of
he witnesses to the parties was sucl :
hat presumptively it may be said .
hat the witnesses for the defendant :
we're more interested in the result .
han those of the plaintiff: but in con :
liberation of the nature of the issue :
nd the absence of any evidence of =
disposition on the part of the wit :
esses upon either side to be unfair. 7
m not inclined to attach great i'm
ortance to this feature of the case
10 question is made of the honesty
r integrity or general character
ny of the witnesses They do no
iffer widely concerning the eviden-
AIRY facts and it is not strange that
hey should take different views OIL
ne significance of these facts and the
eientific conclusions to he drawn