GENERAL33431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page Three The testimony and reports of Myers is that tre.roineral deposits on the property in question a,re placer.(excepti for the 'pegmatite dike). The pits on the property indicated., . that the material there was alluvial in nature. lie:'exami,ned the pits and did not observe or find aily lodes, yeips, etc.,. in any of the pits. His conclusion was.. that the material being worked on .the claims was transported material and there- fore,'p.lacer in nature. ChaYles R. Johnson, a consulting geologist-engineer also examined ttie property for defendants and testified in tj~eir behalf. His testimony is that there were {~o veins or lodes on the Pilot ;;1, on the Mukunda or the Ptukunda #2:'. It was his opinion that the pegmatite dike 1'ocated,pn Pilot f2: would support a.lode deposit. His testimony was similar to. that of IIlair Roberts cohGerning the location and strike of the p'eginati-te dike 'on Pilot )!2. Richard Fournier is a. topaz specialist who deals in - Ehat~,p~rticiilar mineral as his vocation. He stated that )?e could definitely tell if a particular crystal came frcjm a place`,~,^ deposit or a lode. In addition.t~ establishing' the marketability of topaz and topaz crystals from .the property. ih question, his testimony was that the :crystals from .the mining deposit in question were from a placer deposit end not.from a vein. Mines, geologists and courts have acknowledged that there is no definite, unyielding dgfinition of a lode. )`]evertheless, it is generally considered that for a deposit to oonstifiute a lode it:must be fixed in an enclosing, • mass of surrounding country rock and have some kind 4f boutlddrie5 that Would separate ittfrom the country rgek that surroupds:it. Neither plaintiff nor plaintiffs witnesses testified in a convincing:manner that there were any lodes within Pilot ~1,:Mukunda, or Mukunda;.;#2. I must.:reject the testimony of Glair Roberts' that`the underlying, gran'ife bedrock would !ie :s'ufficient -to support lode mining: cl'aiins:`oj7 :P}lot' ~1; MuMUj~d~, and=,M~ilcilhda ~2. ' More convincing is the testimony of: Myers and.JOhnson that there we're no lodes within those 3 claigt~:;• None of plainti€f's witnesses ever identified any indiv~c~ual veins or lodes of mineral bearing rock in place so as to make lode locations appropriate. This situation is not entirely: dissimilar from that found in the case of TITANIUM ACTYNIT$ INDUST1tIGS v. MCLENNAN.272 F. 2d. 667. No one could identify the veins or the boundaries of the veins by any'mearis. A granite bedrock does not constitute a lode. ~Phere was no apex within the claims, nor any proof that the granite bedroc$ in any ~•iay could support lode locations on Pilot ;R1, Mukunda, and Ptukunda N 2. ~