Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/315

 IRON SILVEB MINING 00. ». CHEEBMAN. SOI �location. Now, upon that, plaintiff here claims that the Iode in controversy, or ground in controversy, if there is a Iode in it, originates in its territory by its top or apex, and deacends upon its dip through and under the other claita; and they have sought, by numerous •witnesses and elaborate preparation, to maintain that view before you. And the question, as it is presented to my mind, is a very simple one. Upon that I have written something here for your instruction, whicb I will read. �Whether in the ground in controversy there is a vein or Iode bearing silver, within the meaning of the act of congress, is the principal question in this case. The words used in the statute to designate a minerai deposit in rock in place are vein, Iode, and ledge, and these are supposed to be nearly synonomous in meaning. However these words may differ in meaning, it is not important in this case to look for a distinction between them. Nor is it important to define their meaning in a manner that may be accepted in all cases. Any effort 80 to define them would probably resuit in a failure; but we must seek for a meaning which will enable us to reach a conclusion in this case. So proceeding, it is enough to say that a vein or Iode is a body of minerai or mineral-bearing rock within defined boundaries in the general mass of the mountain. This is a sufficient description, cer- tainly, as to all bodies of ore that may be found within the Unes of the location. As to what may be found in the body of the claims, there being no conflicting location, it is not very important to consider whether it is in place. But the statute, giving the right to pursue the Iode beyond the Unes of the location in a downward course, refers to veins or Iodes in place, and whenever such right may be claimed or asserted, it is important to consider whether the vein or Iode, or that which may be alleged to be such, is in place within the meaning of the act of congress. And, first oh that point, it may be said that if the ore body is continuous to the extent that it may maintain that character, it is in place. So far as the ore body is continuous, it must have been deposited in that form or removed bodily, and with its inclosing rocks, to the place in which it may be found. And in either case, as to such continuous ore body, it is proper to say that it is in place within the meaning of the act. And this is the point in controversy between the parties. You will remember that the witnesses for the plaintiff unite in saying that the ore extends with more or less unif ormity, and that it is practically continuous from the plaintiff's claim into and through the defendants' claim, so far as it has been explored. The plaintiff produced assayers to testify that ��� �