SUPREME COURT, LAWRENCE

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 264, 20 February 1873, Page 6

SUPREME COURT, LAWRENCE

(Continued from Supplement ) in the affidavit is true to the best of i»y knowledge. It is quite possible that the ox change spoken of \vq,s tnacle. I believed that there had been some sort of arrangement for an exchange, the precise nature of which I do not -know. \Vhen I saw paragraph 7, I believed that Morrisori and KicoU said fyere Tfas an I 'exchange! Latterly, 't' tqbk' the trouble. to see M'Cljntoek and M'Kenzie, who said there had been an exchange. No two who said there had been an exchange agreed upon the boundaries. (Letter sent by witness to Mr. M'Clintock wv l€tiv SfcptWjei- \%2^ rea4 by Mr. Barton).' Ido not know the time when I saw him before I wrote. I went to Switzers to ace Mr. M'Clintock, Ido not recollect th"c tftne— it was within six months. I had a sniall tracing when^l ! saw M'Clintock. "I do not know Whether I have lost it or not." M'Gliniiock saidTthe line was about a chain. T expect the jury to believe that 12 days after the date of the letter I honestly believed what is contained in paragraph 7of the affidavit. We. did not make up our' minds to ' brjng \hh action till the 20t'K September. ' Before I could possibly get an answer to my letter to M'Clintock, proceedings were commenced. I asked in my letter to M'Clintock the position of Speirs andDocherty's race, for my own information. This letterproduced to M'Clintock, is in my handwriting. (Marked on plan the position of a portion of Speirs and 'Dqtihe'rty's tailrace). 1 only know the position of the portion of Speirs and Dooherty's tail race, near peg 85. The other portion was not in existence in 1867. The portion of the tail race at peg 85 existed up to 1871. The tail race is about 8 feet to the southward of eg 85 — according to Adams' measurements. It. must have" therefore been 8 feet on the Perseverance claim. T cannot mark the position of the tailrace on photograph N T o. 1. I think peg 85, according to Adams' survey, is between the twq men shown on photograph No. — a good way to the back. The tailrace would be 8 feet to the left of peg 85. It is possible that the "water shown on the photograph runs through, this tailrace. -We broke up the solid cement we experimented upon by picking. "(Indicated place on photograph where the blue stuff was taken from.\ We put down a Bole' three feet square in the solid. Clayton, Margetta, and myself were present. "V^e included the stones in the measuredteak. The 2?<?><? 2$ $/}}&& »£> w'tih 3£>£>S£> f\irt, \mt, is accessible, f undertake tr> s pbin^itout to two "of defendants to-morrow looming. ' In testing the valne we threw out the largest stones— making an allowance of five per cent, for them. The boxes we washed the stuff in were in the tailrace. They miuht have been in it 12 months, hut I do not know how long. They are shifted now to another part of the claim. They were not shifted at the time of making the experiment. Mr. Margets made the calculations, and I made calculations to verify them . Qn photograph No. 3 is shown an old tailrace by which we worked onr claim up to the 'time we purchased Keppel ont in 1868. The same tailraoe is visible on No. 4. "' .' ' 'The Court adjourned till 2 o'clock, and on resuming "William Evans was re-examiv\ed by Mr. Macassey — When I bni\gh'i into the Perseverance, Grieve showed me as the boundary ppgs 19, 77, 53, 78, and 16, and also indicated the position of peg 85 as|l have previously stated. The slip that caused us tn prop up the races was the one in the Perseverance claim that fell in 1,8(38, The precipitous face shown on photograph No. %is ori' the Perseverance Co.'s ground. Assuming that the ftuming leaked, and that there was a landslip in the Perseverance claim, they could not have affected defendants workings, because they are much lower 3 and in a different direction. The precipitous face is a bank between two slips. ' When Margetts and yourself; and Nicoll were in conversation with. Docherty ■and Speirs, what did the latter say?, Mr. Barton objected to the witness repeating the conversation alJnded to. II Mr. Macassev wanted the conversation, he could ca l ! Docherty or Speirs. His Honor overruled the objection, making a note of it at Mr. Barton's request. Re-examination continued — I don't recollect what Docherty said. Speirs said the piece of ground his party purchased fj;om the Perseverance Co. was 50 feet from peg 80, running along the western boundary towards pe"g 16 ; i^hat Speirs and' Co, 'a workings extended BJ},feet along the same line,; that they wen,t 30 feet past the cutting or exchange ; that they went 60 feet along the boundary between their claim and that of Morrison and Co., towards peg 12" ; and that the face was about 30 feet, in height. % We took the greatest possible precaution to, prevent there being any gold in ' the boxes in ■which we washed the stuff we tested before commencing the experiment. John Trerise, mirier, resident at Blue Spur, examined by Mr. Macassey — I "have resided at the lUue ' 'Spur 10 years. '\ know defendants. I helped to drive a tiinnel on defendants' claim in February, 1871. A man named Stevens worked with me. The tunnel started 3 feet up the reef from Morrison's present kail race, and then went 'to the left.' "The length of the main tunnel was 50 feet.' The left cross drive was 9 feet 6 inches, and was 10 feet from the end of tlie tunnel. The right cross drive was 16 feet 6_ inches. During the progress of-. the tunnel, whi'e conversing with Nicoll, I said it would lie better to put a little shot down to the left, to ease the foot. Nicoll said he could not go down there as that was Clayton's ground, f proposed to put i,n this small drive about 20 feet from the mouth of the fcunnel. I identify the. f,?ce)bnt cannot indicate the place where the tunnel was put" in on the photograph. I remember the Wast being fired, and a landslip afterwards. The landslip was caused 'by the shot of Feb. 1871. c Crosj- examined by Mr. Barton — I am. ft. "wages man in the employ of plaintiffs. \fohn M'Laren miner : 1 am in the employ ol the Perseverance Co., and have l^enso si nee 18.65 \v ith the exception of 6iOr 8 nw«jths at the end of 1865, and com- ! m-encenient of 3866. I have resided eight years on the Blue Spur. I. remember a ©last fired in defeudrants claim in Feb. 1871. A landslip shortly afterwards occurred, which I attribute to the effects of tjh^ blast. \ have observed the condition

of plaintiffs' claim from time to time since the blast. It is not in the same condition as it was before the blast. A large quantity of earth has slipped down, and been washed hy defendants. The earth would naturally slip into the lowest ground. Defendants ground is the lowest. lam a practical miner, and acquainted with the Blue Spur workings. The defenfenJnnta can run off much more' stuff than plaintiffs, haying greater facilities^ The reef dips into the workings, allowing the water to get well Jnfco'the 'sluff. I do not know liow much water plaintiffs use, but 1 Ixave seeti tfcem divide the water to prevent it taking off too much stuff, Defendants' - tailrace has a greater fall tft&o. glain tiSts. When T entered the plaintiffs' service, there were pegs marking the claim. I knew a peg "on the southwest corner. I know the place where the peg now marked 85 originally stood. I know peg 16, and' the other! ?eg, but I cannot define Its position, 'eg 85 is considerably " lower than the original one. tdq nqt know whether this peg has, been touched. The plaintiffs' claim withm the boundaries I have mentioned, is not in the same condition as when I knew it first. Cross-examined by Mr. Barton. — I remember when Grieve was manager of the Perseverance c'aim. I don't remember Grieve making a cutting, in which I was one of tlie men that i worked.. GJrieye never made a cutting tnat'f remember. I know Alexander M'lntosh. lie never \yorked m a cutting when Grieve was manager. M'Tntosh was manager immediately before G^rieve. There was a cutting, but I never \york.ed in it w^th M'lntosh. M'lntosh was manager of the claim at the time the cutting was made. X don't recognise the cutting on the photograph. I cannot say that tlie photograph now shown represents tlie Blue Spur. The cutting I worked in ran along plaintiffs' and defendants' claim, in a northerly direction, The ground where peg 85. originally stood, has fallen away considerably. Ido not recognise wbas the photograph repreßen.ts. I could point out the pegs on the ground, but I cannot describe them har-e." ' I dp nos know whether peg 85 has been' removed by human , hands. Ido not know who put in the peg 85. There was no number on the i poses, 85 was parted o;n a board beside it. % \vas not taken, up by plaintiffs to the pegs ; neither did I erect the board with the number on it. Ido npt know why the peg is numbered 85. 11. J. Abel, Receiver- of Gold Revenue at Lawrence, was next called. Mr. M.acassey banded a member of miners' rights to the witness, who identified them as having been issued : from tlie Warden^ Office. Mr. Barton, objected to Mr. Abel producing documents of which he was : not the custodian. Witness — I have been Receiver of Gold Revenue at Lawrence for five •years. Mr. Btor-ton. was my immediate predecessor, Mr. Pyke is at \ present Warden. Mr. Simpson was his predecessor. I recognise receipts produced for rent for lease No. 47 as being in my handwrit^xg. Mr. Barton, objected to this, evidence. Mr. Macas.sey pu.t in a lease to Clayton and his co-tenants in the Perseverance claim, and a number of assignments from Clayton aia,d his cotenants down to the present plaintiffs. Mr. Barton said it had be,en arranged that points should not be argued now. He wouid make 1 at present a formal objection, to the leases being put in. It was admitted on, both sjdjgs that the _ rent of both pla,wt£&s' ans defendants' leases had been paid, and that the assignments had been registered. Several transfers were placed in witness* hands, and identified by him. C. W. Adams, Government District Surveyor — I have been officially connected with this district since February, 1867. I know the Perseverance Co. and Morrison and Co. I have been professionally engaged by both parties. I have been so engaged in the present casg. I survevea Speir^' claim partly in 1867 and" "part^ in' 1868. That survey was not, made specially for Speirs and party, hut was done in the course of other work. While engaged in that survey, I believe I saw defendants. After I had completed that survey, up i to November IS7I, I do not know whether I saw defendants. The plan of the lease of. Speirs' claim corresponds w.i±h my survey. Ihave not had any conversation with defendants specially in regard to the survey of Speirs' ground. On the J3th April, 1868, I surveyed the Perseverance claim. The survey of that claim completed tbe survpy of Speirs' claim, In surveying the plaintiffs' claim, the data I had were the copies, of every plan of and the description of. the boundaries of,, every claim on the Blue Spur. I' had also a traverse, which, by order of the Government, I had taken from one end of the Bjue Spur to the other. The traverse ran from trig. 3d: to 'trig. 4d. I may also have had the leases' of severaljof the claims. I found a great number, of. pegs when I went on the grbunid. lihese pegs were 16. and 12, at the north and west of defendants' grou,nd ; 13. 14, 15, 16, and 19, at the S.Wj corner of the Perseverance claim. I, did. npt make my survey from those pegs alone, but from my former, survey of the Blue Spur as a whole. Pegs are often removed, sometimes accidentally and sometimes intentionally ; so it is necessary to survey large areas in order to verify position of pegs. On a subsequent visit I saw peg 53. Intervening pegs are frequently more valuable to a surveyor than corner pegs. Peg §S is the starting point in the

lease. I laid off pegs 77 and 78 from peg 53. Mr. Keppel, I think, showed me the position where 77 and 78 ought to be. The ground had slipped at 77. Pegs 16 and 19 were in when I made the traverse— leaving only peg 85 to be accounted for. I do not think I ever saw the original peg 85, but I put a peg in at its site from the bearings and distances of the adjoining claims, and that of the plaintiffs', measured by myself. With pegs 16 and 19 in the ground, a surveyor would have no difficulty in assigning a position to peg 85. In placing that pegk I fcbiak I tool* into consideration the suryej of the whole Blue Spur, espepially qf the adjoining claims. The reason, why I took into consideration the wh,ole of the claims on the Spur, was that an error had previously been made in the bearings. I put in a small peg then. I did not put in a permanent peg, because the grouud waa always in a state of motion. 1 put a sma.ll peg with a flax stick alongside, The result of my survey was embodied in a map (produced), containing about a dozen claims, including the Perseverance and Speirs', but not Morrison's. Morrison's claim has been marked Jn pencil, but not by me. The G/reat Extended Company appears on the plan. A copy of the map is retained here, and a copy was sent to Dunedin. After the blast, I was asjked hy plaintiffs to put in the pegs again. Up to the middjje of 1871 I was a salaried officer of the Government, and took no flotes of the dates of my visits. The fees, were p ( aid into the Warden's Court, and, I went to. the ground when, directed by the Warden. On the 16th Dec. 1871J I gave' plaintiffs the N.E. and the N^W. boundaries. lam not whether the pegs I previously put in remained. I gave tl^e' boundaries from the traverse. After faking a traverse, I do not require see the pegs to make a survey. I put inj at 3^ a piece of iron rod in the i*ock on defendants' cjaim, with their permission.. '' t p^ut in because I was unable, to put it at 8^5,. \ gav.e pjain,tiffs a. mem.o,ran,dun\ o£ the distance the > xrßm pea fyraa peg §5, -was | 13& links. In December 2S£2, pkmfcinV claim. <vas slipping to the nortt\ east. The ground to the north east was being worked by Morrison and Co. Ground, was, slipping down from, plaintiffs in,to, Morrison an,d Oo.'s. I was told that these lines were required, as the clain^ was slipping. X vis,ited the claim on the Ist July 1&72. I believe T repeated what I did on the 16th Dec. There is no note in, my field book of what I did on that occasion. The ground was, slipping to the north east to a greater extent than before. I cannot give an estimate, of the quantity slipping, as I made no defcuj measurement. Qn. the 9th ofju,}y, % visited the ground again. I then, made a detail purvey of a,y th,e points x with a view of; 1 ascertaining the quantity of earth that had gone. I took a base line from 3b. to 3.C with a theodolite, and took the positions horizontally and vertically. I fixed the position of nine points ; 3 points, in each boundary, and two or, three independent points, My observations w(ere confined to, that portion of the claim marked landslip. This was for- the purpose of ascertaining if 'any further slips occurred, and to measure the quantity already gone. The land I survey^ oxy the 9*h July, was identical with\ tj&e la,nd surveyed by me in 186^ The plans in Court were prepared by me. The plan produced represents correctly the position on ground of plaintiffs' claim, defendants' claim, and the other claims shown upon it. I have another plan showing the bearings and distances of the leases. The points marked 85s, 16% and 19. on the small map aiyl the western boun-. dary of Speirs' claim harmonise on the whole with those on the map of leases. Drummond's survey makes peg 85 464 links from 16. My survey makes it 461 links from, peg 16-. From peg 12 it is 2&9t; by Drummond's and 235 by my survey. This is a very large error — 1 in a 1000, in the extent of error allowed by the Survey Department, I attribute this error to careless surveying and the roughness of the ground. The plaintiffs and myself, walked,* over the surface A to ascertain, where the original surface was. We assumed the height at 85 as the same as that of the flax bush. (Indicated position of flax bush on photograph). We assumed 10 feet had slipped aw.ay at 3 (on photograph), 10 feet at 5, and 20 4> feet about 85, Assuming that calculation to be be correct, 863.1 cubic yards of solid had slipped down up to the 9th July. Different shareholders in the Perseverance Co. gave me different accounts of the position of the original surface; and uponinformatipn^upplied by one of the shareholders^ Ij at the request of the company, took a plane of the whote ground, in order to estimate the quantity of stuff: between that, and the present level. I. was not sufficiently acquainted with the ground to make an estimate without obtaining information. Mr. Barton said he had asked each of the plaintiflfe, and they had all denied-j having indicated* any points to Mr. Adams. He asked that the evidence should be stopped, on the ground that Mr. Adams founded his calculations on hearsay, or the still better ground that none of the plaintiffs had supplied him. with the data he now said he had gone upon. He submitted that tbe evidence could not be received. M,r. Macassey said the proner time

for his learned friend to make his objection, was in his address to the jury. The witness was called merely to prove calculations made upon certain data. It was for the jury to decide upon the value of the data. His Honor said that if the data upon which Mr. Adams based hjs calculations were not proved, the calculations were necessarily valueless. Mr. Barton aske.d his Honor to erase from his notes the evidence referring to calculations made on the supposed data. His Honor £iaid he ba.4 mad.c a note of thh Bj&to&r. The Court adjourned till Tuesday, at |0 a.m.

Tuesday., Febbttaut 18. His Honor took his seat at 1Q a.m. C. W. Adams' examination by Mr. Macassey continued — Qn three j different occasions I made measurements with the view of ascertaining the quantity of stuff run away from plaintiffs' claim.. Qne of these occasions was in September, and I went two or three times in November. I fixed several points on the 9th July, so that at any subsequent period I could ascertain the ground that had disappeared. Between July 9, and September 23, 9632 yards had disappeared. I have calculated $he rate of working in defendants- cjajtn. The claim of the d,ef,endan > ts that lam acquainted with much easier worked than plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs have worked 1352 cubic yards in # }5< hours. The quantisy v was partly in solid and. partly \i\ loo.se. I saw and measured the st'qftf run off in the 15 hours. The description of plaintiffs' leas,e in the declaration is perfectly correct. A copy of the plan, was sent to survey office. M;. Barton objected \q iany questions being asked about the plan, in the survey office, unless it was produced. Examination continued — The difference between, the description given hy me and the description, an the lease itself, is, the N.Vf. boundary is 1Q72, links on the lease, and 1124 by my survey. Qn the N.E. boundary, the 752 by my survey. T&e dist&ace ca the south east boundary is identical on both plans, 413, links, and the southern boundary is 6/?Q links on the lease, and 700 links on my plan. The different points of the survey, with the exception of peg 16 in the S.AY". corner. I attribute tlie dissrepancy to an. error in the previous survey. The piece of land marked " landslip " on plan, is plaintiffs 1 ground. \\ r 'ith only the information supplied by the lease, I could not attempt to identify plaintiffs' claim. With the lease alone I would not attempt to make a survey. I should require a map of the triangulation of the district, anc} other matters. Oros.s-exam.ined by Mr. Barton — I produce my first field sketch of plaintiff's claim, which \s dated 13th June iae.B. The date of the map is 10th April 1867. Mr. Drummond's map is in the Survey Office. Ido not recollect any plan, of the goldfiejds, taken when tb.2 goldfields survey w,as in Mr. Pyke's department, existing in the. Survey Office, Dunedin,. (Witness produced Drum.mond's plan, know.n as Drummond's survey map). When I came to the offijee, that was the only plan I fou^d, with the exception of an old plan; (proflueed),. These are no bearings or traverse lines on either of the maps. Mr. Mvacasgey toak the objection that, as neitlyer of tb© plans tad been constructed by Bsr. Adams, he could not be cross-examined on them. Cross-examination continued — There are some meridian, headings on the small maps, The. position of N., S., E., and W. is indicated by surveyors by degrees. Eass \^as never described by surveyors as 90 or 270> an.(l west 90 or 270 ; but such a description would be understood by a surveyor. 1 Bee no evidence, on the map that the lines are from the true meridian. Many surveys are made from, the, magnetic meridian ; but I would not make such a survey of the B|ue Spur. The plan from, which the leases are tak,en is in the Land Office, Dunedin. I b/^ieve I have seen it there. 1 have a "copy of it. The plan produced is, I believe, a copy, of, it. I compiled it from copies of the plan, sent me by the Survey Office. I did npt take away DrummpndXplans to present the defendants from, seeing them I did not have a row; with M/. Pyke because he showed the plans in^ my absence. I do not knpvrthat Mf . Pyke reported me to INlsr. Thomson, I did not get J reprimanded. I complained to Mr Pyke that during my absence my papers \ had been knocked about. The small plan I produce w^,a not at my private house. Ido not knpw tha,t defendants searched for and could not find it. (Copiea from which map compiled produced.) I dpn't kn,ow; from the map whether Drumtnond l^ were true meridian or magnetic bearings. There was a piece cut off yesterday or the day before to make it fit a drawing- board. The piece had written ( on, it " Copy of Drummond's survey plan*." This plan was compiled from Drummond's survey. The bearings put on i^re those on the lease. I copied the meridian, on DTummond V plan. The bearings on. Drummond's plan and the bearings on the lease plan are identical. I have not said that Drummond's plan, is in the survey office, Dunedin. The only copy of Drummond's plan that I know is the one in Court. I compiled my

plan from the leases of the Blue Spur. I believe the plans of the leases are originals — the only originals in the possession of tb.e Grovernment. J. would not be surprised to learn that there is an original plan in the possession of the Survey Department. With a correct plan and description of land properly connected with a trig station, it is possible to find it at any time, even if the features of the country are entirely changed. Some of the descriptions, of the claims bear internal evidence of inaccuracy. This is the case with plaintiffs' claim. I made the plan, (produced), for defendants. The yellow mark on tibe r^gbfc of fcbe plan shows plaintiffs' clajm as it is o\\ the ground. It is correct, having being checked from several independent points. Jt corresponds with the diagram on plaintiffs' lease. The plaintiffs' claim is shown on the plan. My statement has no reference to the traverse. There is no" difference between the description in words qtf the traverse, and the figure.? of the traverse; but the diagram, on the b,ack does not correspond with the written description.. According to the written description on the lease, the left" hand yellow figure s,hqws the position of plaintiffs' claim, assuming the meridian used to be the tru.e m,eridjan. In descriptions made, I did not state whether the true meridian was used. The left yellow figure represent* the situation of the ground according to, the leaae, and the right figure, its position, according to my survey. There is a discrepancy between the description, and the diagram on the lease. There \a n,o ambignity in the language of the lease. Any good surveyor. wou,ld be ahle to, place the two yellow figure^. I have placed them. The date of the plan with the tw/) figures on pqt iv, is November 20, 1872. The date of the plan compiled from, the lea.se& is 1867. I have" a copy of the plan from which the triangle shown has been made, (plan produced ; original map from the Land Qfficea also produced). The survey I made alters the beai'insjs of every claim on the Spur, j fcbis, w-as between Hales and the &r eat Estei\de4 00. My chief evidence in that case was as to the quantity that had slipped. I also gave evidence as to the correctness of the boundaries. I don't think any pegs were seriously disputed. The Court adjourned till 2 o'clock, and on restfminj^ Cross-examination of C. W. Adams continued —In my surveys I followed Mr. Druttvnond*s pegs. The first claim I surveyed was sec. 16, Block XVIII., belonging to Livingstone and party. Mr. I^icolson was in Tuapeka then. 1 found and went by Drummond's pegs. I never marked on the plan who put in the pegs ; nor did I enter in my field hook the na,me of the parties who pointed out the pegs. I did not tell] Nicolson that on the survey mentioned, I had to ignore Drummond r s pegs. I never told Nicolson at any time that I had been compelled t;o ignore Drummond's pegs. The only way I could make a correct survey was from Drummpnd*s pegs. I consider it a criminal action, for a surveyor to, al£er the boundaries of land. The S.E- earner- peg, No. 13, 1 : believe, is npt in, the. place it was placed in by Drummond. The position of every peg on my plan has been testified to by the holders of adjoining claims. In 1868i|when I put in peg 85, Morrison and some one else came up and remonstrated with me, for placing it in the position, it now is. They said it should be a, certain, distance away, and, I think, pointed oujb some, of Drumtnonji's original pegs. In the lease of Speirs v claim, made from my survey, Drummond*s bearings are completely altered. The words " towards, the narth-east >J convey no particular meaning. By the description given in, and plan on the lease alone, it would be impossible to find the land. It is npt usual to give more information in leases thr.n.that in the one produced. Peg 53 is the starting point in my survey. I surveyed peg 16. It was pointed out by several people whose names Ido nof. know. I also surveyed peg 19- t April, 1867; is the. date of the survey. There are two pegs showing the traverse lines — one of these pegs is at the corner of* the clajm. (Peg shown), I believe the plan of Speirsi' lease is in Drupxniond's plan. On the %\\ July, I w§ut to plaintiffs claim to ascertain the quantity of stuff that had s|ipped. I took bearings from a number of points. From poin£ 3b I took the bear.ngs and elevation, and calculated vertical height above sb^ The bearing was 216.30, the elevation 17.45 From these the vertical height was be calculated. From 3c .the bearing was 251.23 to the east, and the elevation was 20.5& t From those positions I made the vertical height to. peg 5. ■on the plan. 218£ ft. From, 3c to 3b, the length of the line is 336.8 links. I visited- the ground again on the 23rd September, and went through the same prpcess. A good deal of the ground on Speirs'- claim had slipped. The upper .part, ha» been washed away. I have never seen high ground sink and cause lower ground to rise. I may have said to Nicoll that I found' the gronnd higher ou. my second visit than I did on my first. I am under the impression that in consequence of ground falling down, one of the points was higher thah before. Speirs' claim is ths highest on the

Spur. I could not say whether I told Nicoll that the ground from that claim had fallen into the Perseverance Co.'s ground. The general direction qf the strata is to the north-east. If Speirs' ground fell, a portion of it would fall into the Perseverance claim. The document produced is in my handwriting. It shows calculations made for defendants upon certain assumptions in the same manner as I made calculations for the plaintiffs. Qn the assumptions that are contained in this document, the calculations I made are correct. The note produced }s in my handwriting. It contains the result of certain, calculations of tbe cubical contents of Evans' cutting, m.ade ait the in.stan.ee of defendants. I had to assume certain data t°. make those calculations. In calculating the quantity of earth slipped down frqrn plaintiffs' claim, I did not make §uch assumptions. I did not measure eyery square yard, but I took my pointy so that the, estimate I formed would be rather under than over the rnar.k. Wh,en I took the observation, I could not see peg 5 from, peg 85, Both Speirs' claim, an,d the Perseverance claim have s.unl^ d.own since the photograph was taken. I believe I saw Nicoll, Oortnack, and Speirs on the 22nd October. I don't recqllect stating that I had arrived at my conclusions from information supplied by Evans • that nothing was said about the ground being worked or that they or Speirs. and Co. had arranged about an exchange. I swear that I did not say, so far. as peg 16 was concerned, plaintiffs must be wrong. The ground has fallen at peg 16.. The plaintiffs never gave me a, point to, calculate the amount of their stuff run off, nor did \ telj N;icoll that such was the case. The ground was slipping into plaintiffs' claim at peg 16. Ido not recollect tefling Cormack at \\\q survey office that I was surprised that Clayton, who knew all abaut th,e ground, had given me no and that I was compelled to rely on others. • I will not swear, that I did not say so. Clayton did give roe information. I never said to Cormack that I arrived at ray quantities from mforinatioii sujj- | jliid foy 2t%ws?>*v<& M^%%ii^. <K«.y<W, j Evans, and Margetts gave me information. The first time I went over Drummond's survey was at the instance of defendants. In 186,8, when I put in peg 8,5, th,ere were a good many people about. E,vans and Thompson might have bpen there. Morrison remcmstrate4 with, me for putting in peg 85. I don*t recollect Speirs (sayings that I placed the peg 21 feet on defendants' claim and too high up the hill. I never asked any one's opinion about the position of peg 85. I put it in from the other pegs. I m.igl>t have said that I would take no notice of anybody. The natural surface had gone in. 1867. In ] 868 the groi^nd was broken up and moving. It would be impossible even for a surveyor to point out the position of peg 85. from recollection. I listened to what was, said, but did not allow it to influence me. I don't recollect Qrieve being on the claim. I don't recollect telling the people on the grou,nd that I went out for the plaintiffs. I was at that tinie in th,e employ of Government, at a fix^ed salary. I have made a re-survey of the gro.und. I never shifted the position of peg 85 from the place f originally p,nt it. Ido not remember Speirs saying, "If yoi\ give me my 2^ feetj I w^ be. ii^ Moi;ri^on,'s tailrace." MorrisoA's tailrace w^s over. 60 feet from peg 85. I^e-examined by Mr. Macassey. — I have been employed by the defendants in tl\e action, after the inj inaction was obtained. The effect of v my survey was to shift the position of all the claims on the Blue Spur. Speirs' claim is bounded on the N.E. by Crown lands, to the S.E, by plaintiffs' claim. Mr. Macassey : Then it may be taken ( for granted that Speirs.' claim is also shifted ?■ Mr. Barton objected to the question, and it was not put. Mr. Macassey : Point out on, the map the south eastern boundary of Morrison's claim. Mr. Barton, again objected, but the question was allowed, His Honor taking a note of tbe objection. The witness pointed ouj; on,the plan the south easteraboundary as described in the lease. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. the following day.

For coiitirwation of ■ Supreme Court, sit fifth page.