The Helena independent., 1893-06-16
The HIGH SCHOOL CASE.
More Export Testimony ~ 10 the
Character Of tho Stone
Work.
A Practical N1ohanic Whose 4vi-
dsncs Interests the Jury
and tho Court.
lIr. WeIlAse Tyiss n Psuvs INST PAu!sen's 3
Power Had I,ssn RsvoksA by
TIE Trustees

Expstt testimony Of stone maSons Was
heard By the jury in the school house case
I'll day yesterday. George Foss. . civil
engineer, and william Foster. aspssotiesl
nason. being the principal witne6sss. Mr.,
goss said that In bis opinion the plans and
Specifications called for plain rubbls stone
work. and not such % In ths building. He
was shown the plans Of extensive elevations
and said that he thought the lines Of soms
work we're somewhat uncertain and In poY-
sions might refer to common rubbls or to
rag rustic work. but his opinion vas they
meant ths subbls like the auditorium foun-
dation work. Foster 10 . practical me.
shanic like Jensen. but with = different
kind Of manner entirely. He responded 70
questions OF the snount OF labor and ssone
work stonsmasen eould perform In . plain
dircct way which seemed to interest the
oourt and Jury. He sxplainsd By bricks
upon table methods Of atch brick laying
and gave his Judgment ssto the numbsE Of
brick fair mason could lay in an arch
during day. Mr.. Wallscs asked the witness
II he Wa present ~ sshosl board meeting
whom Paulssn eomplsinsd TO the board
that he was not consulssd as hs should bs.
whsreupon member Of ths beard had said
II would hAvs been better had hs never
bssn called IN. Objection was promptly
intsrpessd upon the ground shat an answer
could not tend TO establish any matsSial IL
sae., Mr.. wallace said his purpsss was TO
introduce II ~ circumstance going to
provs the revocation BY the board Of Paul
sens power under Tho contract. The court
kntN hA Mki II 4 ~
Impossible 10 sss how suoh renots testi.
mony could establish the issus OF modia-
caSion Of the contract. at lsast antil there
Was soms other and better evidence first
offered tending 10 show brsaoh Of the
written contract in ths ignoring Of Paulsen.
II any there WAS. on the part Of The board.
For shs present. therefore. Judge Hunt
said, the question II excluded, but II may
possibly become oompetsnt q . later Stage
Of ths oass and may b offered again.
Foss and Foster we're the only witnesses
Wson .ou, sdou.n.d '1 e: S ts.1noon
Col. Nolan had Just finished cross sxamin-
ing Nj. Foster. and hs will b recalled to
the stand this morning. Most Of the testi-
mony IL of such y technical nature as to
render II very untntsrestiDg to any but one
familiar with the building business. Most
day to day are mon interested In building.
All OF the testimony yesterday related to
the character Of the stone work demanded
by the speoihoations and that vat In the
new high school building. Mr.. Foss gave
his experience ~ . civil engineer and tssti-
ned particularly ~ to the manner in which
the openings. and then testidsd a. 10 ths
different kinds of masonry. He idsntidsd
the work az contsm plated by the specihcA.
tions % common rubbls work. A
sample of this kind Of masonry
~ identified by some Of the witnesses can
DO seen from the court room in the wall Of
Mr.. Foss said that the stone work Of the
walls in the high school building WAS differ.
emit from that demanded BY the spscifaea-
tions. and 10 what 10 sallsd rag rustic. The
witness said that from his knowledge aad
experience with plans and Specifications he
could como no other conclusion but shat
she specifications IN question called for
common rubhls work.
Foster qualified himself a. an expsrt
bricklayer, mason and general sonSsAotss.
He examined the Specifications and ocn-
sludsd. from them that common rubbls
work was contemplated. He stated Do ssn-
tractor hs mover would look at the plans 10
to be used or hsw II was going into build
Ing; that the specifications we're for
that purpose. The attention Of
the witness WAS called TO
the blue print elevation plans used In svi-
dsnce and to the mayks on them lssd 10
indicate the stone WORK. Aad asked what u
would indicate 10 his mind. He said II
would indicate nothing except Z rough sur-
face and that no particular slsss Of masonry
was exhibited by The mstks. He then ttsti-
ned ~ to the difference In value ip the
work required BY the specifications and the
work puS IL The building. Hs said = me-
chanio could lay mp from four and half 10
i've pershss OF com moa rnbbls work. such
As requirsd BY the specifications. In day,
and only from one to ono and Q half
p.Ichsn of the rag rustic. the kind in ths
building.