The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-01-19

owning the smelter, could make a
profit treating Star ores while the op-
Grafton Of the mine might be at a loss
Mr.. Gray objected to the question,
pointing out that the value of the Star
depends upon the market, and that the
ore might be sent to other shelters.
long argument followed involving
the admission of testimony bearing
upon the treatment of ore. the con-
tention of defendants being that the
value Of the Star should be determined
upon the mine itself without reference
to treatment of the ore at any partic-
ular smelter.
The court asked if there would not
be competition among smelters for the
ore, which led to an explanation OF
the practice in making smelter con
tracts by Mr. Higgins. To this the
court replied that the Sullivan com
pany (Star) would sell its ore at a
profit or not at all, to which Mr. Gray
added that no smelter contract re-
quires a given tonnage or the mine to
the Bunker Hill would control the con-
tract Mr.. Gray said that no court
would uphold a contract requiring
mining company to operate at a loss.
He read a decision showing the courts
to be pOwerless to interfere with the
acts of trustees in cases of this ma
ture Judge Huneke asked to hear
that part of the complaint alleging
that the Bunker Hill knew the Star
was of no value when sold to Hecla.
Power of the Court.
Judge Huneke overruled the obiec-
ton to the question, but stated that
even if it is found that the mine has
no value, if no fraud is shown and the /
company has not exceeded its corpor-
ate powers, the court cannot inter
fere.
Mr.. Day explained in some detail
that the mine might be operated at a
loss while under favorable contract
and other favorable conditions the
imelter might make a profit in treat
ng the ores.
on cross examination by Mr. Gray
ir Day said the Callahan mine start
ID production in 1913, about the same
ime as the Tamarack, of which he is
and admitted that since that ,
line the Tamarack, a lead mine, had !
'perated only a few months more than
he Callahan, a zinc mine He ex-
'lained, however. that causes outside
f unfavorable market conditions had
aused the Tamarack to lose much J.
ime He said the Tamarack had been
losed down since the first of last a
pril because it was the policy of the >
lays not to dissipate the resources Of n
he mine. Asked about Mr.. Moffitt's q
ffer of the Star he said that he was q
hown a map. but did not see the as C.
ny map and had never been in the
tar tunnel q
Mr.. Mccarthy Recalled. t
James f. Mccarthy was recalled il
nd questioned by Mr.. Higgins. The OF
iestions were based upon extracts
'ad from the complaint. letters from m
r. Bradley and tentative agree m
ent prepared by Mr.. Bradley cover T.
g the option on the STAR and were r,
+ the purpose of showing that Mr. r,
cCarthy had committed the Hecla in
mpany to the purchase of the Star
It'll the Bunker Hill before submit
lg the matter to the trustees
To all of these Mr.. Mccarthy reit- 49,,
ated his oft repeated denial He -
tied that there was no understand -.
3, no gentlemen's agreement, nothing ~,
tn respect to the Star purchase 9TH a..
than his statement to Mr. Bradley 10
At he favored the deal and would -
ssent it to the trustees. He assum- 80
no authority whatever to commit -.
trustees to the proposition. but 40,
'ressly stated that he had no such -,
-hority.