This affiant C. A. Mentry being duly sworn says:

I am the C. A. Mentry who has heretofore made an affidavit on behalf of defendants in this action, and am now and have been since the organization of the of the defendant corporation in charge of its four wells on the Pico claim as stated in said affidavit. I have read the statements of Sanford Lyon, A.L. McPherson and M.S. Loomis in their affidavits filed on behalf of plaintiff with regard to the alleged plugging of the wells.

The plug with an iron strap fastened over it, mentioned by Loomis, was what is technically known as an “oil saver” and universally used where first class machinery is employed in drilling flowing wells. I had not for a number of years before leaving Pennsylvania seen a well which was flowing or where there is any likelihood that a flow would be struck, where a “saver” was not used, and any one possessing the slightest knowledge on the subject would have at once recognized the “oil saver” and its ability. It is used only when the drill is in the well and there is a casing head screwed to the well casing, arranged with a hole in the top. The rope carrying the drill is surrounded, where it works up and down through the hole with an iron pipe enclosing it lightly and going up and down with the rope. The outside of the pipe runs in a stuffing box. In this way no oil can escape through the hole or out of the top of the casing, but there are two pipes leading out from this casing head, one on each side, two inches in diameter and so arranged as to permit the free flow of the gas and oil into the tanks, and thus while the oil is saved it is in no way impeded or obstructed in its flow from the well in fact the oil savers use has sufficient outlet for a well producing 3000 barrels a day.

We had to send to the Eastern states for this “saver” and, before I got it, I used in the wells when the drill was out, a plug the size of the casing, but this plug had a pipe run through it to conduct the oil to the tanks of sufficient capacity to take off ten times the gas and oil flowing from said wells. This is the plug mentioned by Lyon and A.L. McPherson. I know that A.L. McPherson thoroughly understands this, because he once assisted me to rig such a plug and it is remarkable that he should have spoken concerning it. In the connection he did, in the affidavit without adding that there was a sufficient outlet through it.

I remember the time mentioned by Lyon where he says he went to the wells with F.B. Taylor and others. Lyon at that time had an interest in the Pico claim, which he afterwards told me he had sold to F.B. Taylor. He came up with F.B. Taylor, D.G. Scofield and R.C. McPherson. This was in July 1876. Neither Taylor or Scofield had any interest in the property but had, as I understood, come down with a view of making a purchase. The plug with the outlet pipe was in the casing of No 2 well and, as this well was at this time a small flowing well, the oil was flowing out of the pipe. Mr. Taylor desired to gauge the flow of the well and did it with a five gallon can to catch the oil as it flowed; timing the length of time it took to fill the can by his watch. I mention this to show that both Lyon and R.C. McPherson could not help knowing when they gave their affidavits that there was sufficient outlet for the oil and gas and that the well was not plugged in the sense used by Lyon, A.L. McPherson, and Loomis.

Mr. Taylor then said he would like to see a spurt of oil and R.C. McPherson told me Taylor was proposing to purchase an interest, and asked me to agitate the well and make it spurt. Lyon also urged me to do it. I took out the plug having the outlet pipe as aforesaid, and let down the sand pump to agitate the well. Such agitation in wells of this character have a tendency to cause them to spurt for a moment or two. The well did not spurt when I took out the plug as would seem to be stated by Lyon; as taking out the plug did not change the pressure and I had to use the sand pump for some time before I could get the necessary agitation. The well then did make a spurt and most of the oil fell on the platform and returned to the well. The balance passed into the dry bed of the creek where there was a reservoir prepared to catch it. I had a pipe leading from the reservoir and a pump with which I pumped oil up in the tanks. Per this way but little of the oil was lost and the idea that the spurt was caused by the knocking off of the plug or that there was anything reprehensible or injurious to the well in the agitation is absurd. The statement of Lyon in his affidavit that the well was afterward plugged up again while still flowing is untrue. This would have been a matter of impossibility while the well was flowing. The statement also made by Lyon that at another time that well no 1 was plugged up and the plug was forced out is not true. I remember the occasion and it was when we were deepening well no 1 and while the drill was actually working we struck a deposit of oil, and the oil and gas came up with considerable noise. I did not have the “oil saver” in use at the time and, as they were drilling, no plug could have been in, and was not forced out and I cannot imagine what put it in Lyon’s head that the well was plugged at this time, or that any plug had been forced out.

On yesterday I talked with Sanford Lyon in the presence of D.G. Scofield, James Feore, and others, and called his attention to the statement in his affidavit about the plugging of the wells. After some talk, and reminding him of the fact of Mr. Taylor’s gauging the flow of oil as above stated, he admitted that he remembered perfectly well the outlet pipe through the plug, and also that he remembered that the flow of oil was caused by the agitation of the well with the sand pump, and not by the removal of the plug, and that it was not plugged afterward while flowing. He also stated that he did not know whether or not the other well no 1 had been plugged on the occasion where he saw it spurt with great noise as after said, or whether the plug had been forced out, and since his memory had been refreshed he was willing to admit that his affidavit carried a wrong impression of these occurrences and he regretted having given such an affidavit and expressed a desire if possible of changing it, and he also said that he had never seen any of the wells plugged so that the flow was in the least obstructed. He further stated that the experience on which he based his judgment as to the necessity for pumping wells continuously was limited to an experience of six hours continuous pumping he made with his well and that only upon one occasion, and that as a rule he only pumped it twice a day for a short time at each interval.

As to the alleged wastage of oil, spoken of in the affidavit filed in behalf of plaintiff, I have to say that I have at all times used my best efforts to prevent any wastage. In handling oil and drilling wells, some wastage must necessarily occur. For the last eighteen months, and since the improved machinery was brought out from the East, we have had every appliance to save oil including the “oil saver”. The largest amount of oil that has been lost from the wells was from well No 4. On this occasion they were drilling but had taken the drill out to run the sand pump which necessitated the removal of the oil saver, and the well unexpectedly spurted with unusual violence, when three or four barrels of oil was lost. On another occasion a limb of a tree fell on the branch pipe line connecting the main line with a storage tank in the Minnie Lottie Canyon and broke the connection of the line. I was on horseback in company with J.C. Leighton and I at once rode up to where there was a stop cock some 1800 feet off and at once shut off the oil. At this time not over four barrels could have escaped. On another occasion while I was engaged on the survey of the Pico claim, the main pipe line clogged up, backing the oil up in the line and some oil escaped. At this time Mr. Bently was in charge. We struck the large flow of oil in No 4 well in the latter part of November last. Prior to this we had ample tankage and even with this increased supply of oil, had sufficient tankage.

Thinking that perhaps there might be some trouble with the roads, I ordered a new tank and an extra 500 barrel tank was finished that later part of December 1877. The rain during the winter was very heavy, unusually so and there was more interruption on the road than I have ever known, and teams were frequently interrupted in hauling. As the oil began from this reason to accumulate, I ordered another tank, but was unable to get it immediately on account of the stoppage of the railroad from Los Angeles by wash outs, no trains passing here for about one week. We finally got up the tank material, constructed another extra tank of 500 barrels capacity, completing it as I now recollect in the latter part of February. Notwithstanding this additional tankage, the washouts on the road were so frequent and the difficulties of hauling so great, that the oil accumulated in February and March, and I was compelled to turn some of the oil into the creek from the heavier or inferior oil in the bottom of the tanks. This was done on four occasions, to wit: February 15th, 17th, and 27th and March 17th 1878. I measured by tank gauge the amount turned out accurately and advised the Company. It accumulated in all to 89 ¾ barrels. I have an entry made at the time on my books of the oil turned out at the time when Smith caught some of the oil below, and when B.B. Lockwood states in his affidavit filed in behalf of plaintiff, it ran in the creek at the rate of 200 or 300 barrels for 24 hours, and there was only five barrels of oil by actual gauge. On yesterday I spoke to Mr. Lockwood about this in presence of several persons. He said he never meant to be understood that there was 200 or 300 barrels running in the creek, and that the man who said so was a liar. He further said he had never saw more oil than would naturally come from the Spring and seepage of the rocks, except on four occasions; that oil spread out on the water and that people were apt to be deceived and he cited an instance where he had caught oil in Wily Canyon in this District running from an oil spring, and while there would not be over 16 gallons caught per day. Some persons acquainted with oil matters had guessed that it was producing 30 barrels. He also said that there had never been enough oil in the Pico creek to hurt either his wagon or horses, that he never complained to me, but might have joked Bently or myself about it and that he did not know anything about that was going in his affidavit. Today I had another conversation with him and he stated that all the oil he ever saw the whole of last wet season in the creek would not amount to more than 20 barrels.

The above mentioned comprises as I verily believe all the time when oil in quantities has escaped since the defendant corporation has had anything to do with the well. I do not believe and in fact am entirely confident that Loomis never saw well No 1 spurt at night as stated in his affidavit. I remember when he was there with Stanton. We were deepening the well at the time and it would sometimes flow with a loud noise. At night we always kept on the oil saver or an equivalent device with the outlet pipe and, if this had been forced out, I would have known it for my house was nearer than Stanton’s cabin. In addition to this, I never knew said well to make any such large spurt or flow as he describes. Three of the four wells have since they were struck flowed, but as for a long time one of them has ceased to flow altogether and another to flow very little. I put pumps in them and there are now what may be called three pumping wells and one flowing well. So far from there being any unusual wastage from the wells, taking in consideration all the circumstances, the wastage has been remarkably small, and less than in the majority of wells in Pennsylvania and I think I have been very fortunate in not losing more.

There is an oil spring on this claim between two of the wells the oil from which is claimed by Sanford Lyon and there are several places in the canyon where oil seeps from the rock. This makes a show upon the water and in dry weather also collects in pools in the creek and when the water comes it goes down in quantities making a considerable show.

I never stated to R.C. McPherson in the way that he puts it that the company had not supplied sufficient tankage for oil, but I may have told him in explanation why I turned out some of the oil that our tankage was under the unusual circumstances which the condition of the road had occasioned in sufficient for the time being and I am satisfied that he well understands that there was plenty of tankage at the wells to handle all the oil that they could produce except in cases like those herein stated. The wells have been pumped as stated in my first affidavit and I have always been careful to keep the wells free from water, but in fact there is very little water in any of them.

I do not consider that R.C. McPherson is an expert in the drilling of oil wells or operating them. This is evidenced by his affidavit, and also by the character of the work he has accomplished in his attempts to drill wells in this district. He commence in the latter part of December 1875 or January 1876 to drill a well and after getting it down 600 feet he got his tools fastened in the bottom of the well and was never able to extricate them and finally abandoned the well before he got any oil. He then started another well, about July or August 1876, and has been working upon it almost constantly since that time. The greater portion of this time, however, having been consumed in extricating tools which became fastened in the well from time to time owing to unskillful handling and management, which he admitted to me. During this time he endeavored to have me leave the California Star Oil Works Company and as an inducement for me to do so he offered me a bonus of Five Hundred Dollars and one dollar per day more than I was getting from said company if I would take charge of his well. These are the only wells he has ever drilled or had charge of in California, and the second well has never produced any oil which has been sold in market and is now, as I understand, caved at the bottom and filled up for over two hundred feet.

The self styled experts who have criticized my management in their affidavits filed on behalf of plaintiff, to wit: E.F. Weed, Thomas Waite, Wm Rapp, and A.L. McPherson have all been employed by R.C. McPherson to assist him in accomplishing the above mentioned work and results, and as the four wells which I have drilled on the Pico claim and being all I ever attempted to drill in the same canyon, were put down without serious difficulty or stoppage, and have all been, and still are, producing wells. I feel fully justified in saying that my work and reputation does not suffer by criticism of R.C. McPherson or his employees, or comparison with their work.

None of these parties have been to the Pico wells often and they have been there very seldom during the last year. I do not think Weed has ever been there but once and then only for a short time. In fact, I do not think any of these parties have been there enough to form an intelligent opinion about the wells and their characteristics. He states in his affidavit that No 4 well should be tubed and, if tubed, would produce in his judgment probably twice as much as she has produced since he has known it. No 4 is a flowing well, not pumped at all. It is lightly cased with an iron casing six inches in diameter 160 feet in depth until the solid rock is reached and the oil and gas flows up through the casing and into pipes leading in the tanks. Tubing of the kind mentioned by Weed is only two inches in diameter and is not now used in flowing wells without pumps but only in wells where pumping is desired. In fact, the tubing is only now used in connection with pumps, and how simply putting such a tube in this flowing well would increase the flow I cannot understand, and the tube certainly will be useless until it becomes necessary to pump the well, and no pumping has been needed up to this time.

The statement of Thomas Waite that he saw No 4 well flow about 15 barrels of oil in half an hour about on year ago is not true. One year ago or at that time this well was a pumping well as we had not deepened it and it did not commence to flow until November 1877 and it has never flowed at the rate he states for half an hour.

For the purpose of showing what the “oil saver” and the so called “plugs” were, I attach hereto and make a part hereof drawings thereof.

C. A. Mentry
July 12, 1878