Show KEARNS ENGINEER 4 MAKES BAD GUESS Brooks Bald Errors Barred in Silver King Case by Frank Anderson ERRONEOUS MAP EXPOSED JOINT SURVEY UNRAVELED BE BEFORE BEFORE FORE OBE SPECIAL EXAMINER How C P Brooks a mining engineer employed by the Kearns interests to survey the Silver King mine at Park P Jk CUy Ci y made erroneous maps and calculations calculations calculations lations was recited in the federal court i yesterday by Frank Anderson another mining engineer who with Brooks and andL L 1 1 G Burton made a Joint survey of the underground workings known as the Parsons slope from which valuable valuable valuable able ore was taken and for which an accounting is now demanded With the commencement yesterday of the testimony of the three engineers regarding garding r their Joint survey of the Par Parsons Parsons ParSons sons in the hearing before Special Special cial dat Examiner J 1 W Christy the cru crucial crucial CrUcial cial period In the famous suit Cf the I Silver King Consolidated Mining com corn company company I pany against the Silver Silve King Coalition Nines Mines company was reached The tes testimony testimony testimony of these three men regarding the extent of the Parsons from which v a calculation can be made as asto asto asto to the amount of ore removed from the mine will have a most Important bear bearIng lug Ing on the suit The he Joint survey was made at the ther request quest r ot oJ the attorneys for the de defendant defendant defendant company and from the testimony testimony testimony mony adduced at yesterdays hearing It would appear that It would have been much better for their clients if 1 th resurvey had not been made Alter over a weeks uv over i their figures Engineers Frank Ander Anderson Anderson son C P Brooks and L 1 G Burton with their data and maps appeared be before before before fore Special Examiner Christy Anderson whose former survey was found according to the testimony of the different witnesses to be almost accurate showed that the first big mistake found in Brooks survey was soon after at r entering the Parsons on the leveL His survey showed the roof of the cave raise ex extremely extremely extremely low In fact he represented tiis tha roof of the raise below the line lIna of I t the he vaste material as given by An Anderson Anderson derson As soon as the measurements rere ere taken in this his raise Brooks ac according according according cording to Anderson had to confess to U his first grave error I Find FIDd Another Bother Discrepancy Wen Wien the hanging wall drift was reached another discrepancy was found A partial survey of the drift nas wa made and determined from the for former or mer surveys Brooks refused to come cometo to an agreement with the other sur surveyors under any an circumstances as he contended that he was not wrong There is another big discrepancy where the main chamber of the ParSons Par tons Sons separates into two wings near the plane No Noon 2 i ion on the model Brooks has the east line Itne of the solid wall further to the east than represented by Anderson in S lIs ls survey In the joint survey some points pAints could not be reached which were It in 1908 on account of the cay caving caving ing ng of the ground Brooks and An derson were unable to agree upon the position of the solid ground and their notes will be introduced to show what That hat data each have and the determination reached B Iy y accepting Brooks figures at this point it makes the Parsons con considerably considerably considerably I smaller This point is right near the tag raise where It Is alleged the ore was taken out the richest found In the As far as data Is concerned it is said upon re liable information that the figures of Brooks are against him at this point also rooks U Errs Err ss Feet In his original survey Brooks gave the contents of the stoie stole as being cubic feet By taking his same lines and going over each station again the joint jInt j int survey shows that the con contents tents should have been cubic feet This is a difference of 2858 h feet shown in the face of Brooks own f which he was compelled to ad admit admIt admit mit was a mistake Andersons for former former former mer survey surrey showed the contents of the tope to be cubic feet Tak Taking ing ng his bis lines and going over each sta tion again it was found by the joint survey that the contents should be 5 08 cubic feet The difference be bet bewen wen t w en Andersons original survey and andt t te e joint survey surf y is 78 cubic feet This indicates a gain for the plaintiff com corn company pany jany There were several small drifts and raises that were not included in the f surveys On the joint survey tr cubical contents of these places n w ere agreed upon and determined and amounted to cubic feet teet When this is As added to the joint s Vey it makes a grand total of b cubic cubio feet fret in the Parsons The Tho sur surl l encountered some new work n l 1 the tae Parsons according to An dersons testimony The joint survey was vas made in maps to the ones presented original ly Jy I y by Anderson and Brooks on their own surveys There was also a exhibit offered yesterday esterday which shows the difference between the Brooks survey and t the le e Anderson sur surry sury ity ry y as modified by the joint survey Beginning with section 3 Anderson pointed out the discrepancies that had pun fleu matte maae in m Brooks former survey The green lines in the map represent ing lag the joint survey show the roof 1 than represented by Brooks The north wall of the Is also a further north than Oan t an represented luls I is is where the cave raises come into the Parsons and where Brooks had to admit he was mistaken As the tl e survey proceeds further west Anderson showed showe more differences In rn 12 1 where hanging wall walI drift No Xo 4 Is located there Is a material difference Some points could not be berc reached rc ched in the drift and nd the two en engineers could not come to an agree agreement Tent ment This still sUll remains one of the disputed points I |