OCR Text |
Show Record in the record being relevant only to indicate the course of the river. 5479 In rebuttal complainant offered in evidence Complainant's Exhibits Nos. 634 to 637, both inclusive, same being four leases made by the State of Utah covering certain sections of the river beds here in question. Pages 613 to 648, inclusive, of Complainant's Exhibit No. 638, being a document known as Professional Paper 111 and entitled The Ore Deposits of Utah, Washington Government Printing Office, 1920, Official Document, was offered in evidence upon the theory that it tended to rebut certain testimony, for instance that of 5480 Mr. Keller. It was received upon the condition that when any por-tion of it was urged as rebutting any evidence offered by de-fendant, the defendant would then have the right to urge the ob-jection that such portion was not rebuttal. 5482- 5483 H. T. Yokey testified for complainant on direct examination in rebuttal as follows: The survey of the proposed dam site on the occasion when I took certain supplies from Halverson's ranch to the government party was completed before Mr. Wimmer came upon the scene and I did not take any freight from his ranch; all of the freight, consisting of one thousand pounds, was taken from Green River, the balance was hauled to Wimmer's ranch. I didn't take a full load on the river for fear I wouldn't be able to make the turn at the Auger and so only took a thousand pounds from Green River in my boat, and the balance of the ten tons were taken from Halverson's ranch. The drilling expedition with which Mr. Wimmer was concern-ed did not commence until after the survey was completed. 5485- 5501 Alfred P. Vorhees was called by complainant as a witness in rebuttal but the subject matter of the testimony given by the wit-ness and of the testimony which complainant expected to elicit from him was held to be not rebuttal, and all testimony given by |