Martin's Mining Cases of British Columbia Volume 2, PT. 2; With Statutes (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...it is said, first, to distinguish the material removed from the disputed area; and secondly, either to deposit it as a separate mass on the dump or separately to sluice it. It is not necessary I think to consider the exculpatory validity of these explanations; they fail because they have no basis of fact. As to the first, the evidence shews clearly that the defendants' workings crossed at three places only the boundary between the territory admittedly within the Miller and that in dispute. It is obvious that every carload of material excavated from the last mentioned territory must have passed one of these three points. That the points could have been ascertained with exactitude and marked on the ground by any competent surveyor is also obvious. Lamb, having in his examination in chief sworn that in order to distinguish the cars proceeding from the disputed area the constant attendance of a surveyor under ground would be necessary, in cross examination admits--what must be very plain--that the marking of the underground boundary would have involved very little expense or trouble. As to the other explanation offered, there is some evidence given by Frank Miller in support of it; but we are relieved from considering in detail the evidence of this witness by the admissions made on cross-examination on this point also by the defendant Lamb himself, who says that the sole obstacle in the way of the suggested precaution was a little additional expense. It is to be observed that while these explanations are put forward by counsel to account for the action of the defendants in blending the material, we have no such explanation from the lips of the persons who were directly concerned in it. There are three persons whose bond fides in committing the trespasses under ...

R684

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles6840
Mobicred@R64pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...it is said, first, to distinguish the material removed from the disputed area; and secondly, either to deposit it as a separate mass on the dump or separately to sluice it. It is not necessary I think to consider the exculpatory validity of these explanations; they fail because they have no basis of fact. As to the first, the evidence shews clearly that the defendants' workings crossed at three places only the boundary between the territory admittedly within the Miller and that in dispute. It is obvious that every carload of material excavated from the last mentioned territory must have passed one of these three points. That the points could have been ascertained with exactitude and marked on the ground by any competent surveyor is also obvious. Lamb, having in his examination in chief sworn that in order to distinguish the cars proceeding from the disputed area the constant attendance of a surveyor under ground would be necessary, in cross examination admits--what must be very plain--that the marking of the underground boundary would have involved very little expense or trouble. As to the other explanation offered, there is some evidence given by Frank Miller in support of it; but we are relieved from considering in detail the evidence of this witness by the admissions made on cross-examination on this point also by the defendant Lamb himself, who says that the sole obstacle in the way of the suggested precaution was a little additional expense. It is to be observed that while these explanations are put forward by counsel to account for the action of the defendants in blending the material, we have no such explanation from the lips of the persons who were directly concerned in it. There are three persons whose bond fides in committing the trespasses under ...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

March 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

March 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 9mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

166

ISBN-13

978-1-130-88758-7

Barcode

9781130887587

Categories

LSN

1-130-88758-8



Trending On Loot