Williams v. Haile Gold Mining Co.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1910
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. HAILE GOLD MINING CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

66 S.E. 1057

85 S.C. 1

WILLIAMS v. HAILE GOLD MINING CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 17, 1910

On petition for rehearing. Denied.

HYDRICK J.

The first ground upon which a rehearing is asked for is that the court overlooked the undisputed facts in the statement that "after the installation of the chlorination process practically all the tailings were affected by that process"; the fact being, as contended by appellant that, after the installation of that process, the defendant discharged into the stream the natural tailings from its stamps, as it had done as far back as 1879, and that, after the installation of that process, only from one-twelfth to one-fifteenth of the natural tailings from the stamps have been arrested and treated by that process.

The undisputed evidence is that after the installation of the chlorination process practically all of the crushed ore was subjected to a mechanical process, which separated from it practically all the sulphides contained therein. These sulphides contained in the concentrates were then carried to the chlorination mill, and, after being roasted, were subjected to the chemical process of chlorination to extract the gold. Therefore the tailings from the stamps contained practically no sulphides, and were not of the same character as had been previously discharged. The testimony was conflicting as to whether there was any damage done to plaintiff's lands prior to the installation of the chlorination process. The plaintiff's witness generally testified that no appreciable damage was done until after the installation of that process; while some of the defendant's witnesses testified that the damage began before its installation. There was no dispute, however, upon the point that whatever damage was done was caused by the sulphides contained in the tailings. The defendant so contended in evidence at the trial, and so states in its petition for rehearing. Inasmuch as the sulphides are admittedly the only deleterious element in the tailings, and inasmuch as the undisputed evidence shows that practically all the sulphides were separated from the ore and subjected to the process of chlorination, the statement that after the installation of that process practically all the tailings were affected by that process was from a practical view of the case substantially correct, for the deleterious element in the tailings was uppermost in the mind of the court.

The next ground taken is that the circuit decree does not clearly define the scope of the injunction which is allowed, in that it is not certain from the language of the decree whether the defendant is enjoined from discharging into the stream only the tailings from its chlorination mill, or whether it is also enjoined from discharging therein the tailings from its stamps, which have not been subjected to the chlorination process. It will be noticed that this court in its opinion quoted the language of the circuit decree granting plaintiff's motion for "injunction to stop the nuisance complained of and now found to exist." These words were used by the circuit judge in stating his conclusion, but he had previously said: "There is no question but that the defendant has used the stream in its mining operation for more than 20 years, but the sharp issue was made...