The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-08-01
RECORD Of The COURTS.
All Of the Testimony In the
y. School House Case now
Submitted.
Special Findings and Instructions
Arc Being Prepared for tho
Jury.
Three Opinions Handed Down BY the
Supreme Court In MissoulA and
Custer County Cnses.

The c1Oa9-exdmtuAtlon OF CONTRACTOR
Whslen was resumed yesterday mo ming.
He terrified that before entering into the
contract for putting up the high school. and
In Juna, 1890, he was shown an offer made
by the BONN Manufacturing company for
the plate glass and hardwood finish for
& [, 1000, by allowing about g. for the
plate glass used in the building and $500
for the hardwood finish, which cost the
school board after they took possession OF
the building about $4,000. He admitted.
however. that there was 40 offer made BY
him and for tho two years and q half sue
cseding he did not take advantage
Of 1t. II also appeared from his
testimony that Wheaton. Reynolds q Go.
offered to furnish the hardwood finish for
something over $1,000. He said there was
Aahipment made Of one carload Of hard
wood finish prepared BY them, d d'upon its
arrival In Helena II was rejected by the
architect az not being In Accordance With
the requirements of the contract. Mr..
Paulsen was then called and testified that
he notified the school trustees soon after
g ant d Whalen commenced work upon
tie building that Mr.. Williams. the super
i~ntendent 70: the school board. was also In
tho employ Of Grant d Whalsn. The Wit
ness stated that upon discussing the matter
with Mr.. Guthrie, who was then . msmber
OF the board. that he WAS told Il was none
of his business. and that his place Was In
his Office with his nose on hts draw.
ing board. The witness also stated
that M. Guthrie told him shat he should
not 90 upon the grounds or interfere In any
way with tho progress OF the work except
whom requested to do 30 by the board. MI.
Paulssn also stated that he appealed to MI.
Howsy to the same effect. but after getting
OF the stand and being questioned BY Mr..
Howsy a. to the correotnes. Of the state:
ment he again went upon the stand and
said II was q mistake on his rart 10 con.
meet Mr.. Howey With Mr.. Williams' en-
ploy mont by Grant d Whalen, and that he
had no reason to suppose that Mr.. Howsy
who had BY this tims grown highly indy.
nant, asserted his right to 90 uron the
stand and disprove the statement made BY
Mr.. Paulaen. which he did disolaiminR all
knowledge Of n employment Of Mr..
Williams.
Contractor Grant was also called and
roof contract. He said he original DRAFT
OF tho contract was rejected By him be-
cause 1t contained provisions which in hi
Judgment wonld relieve the board from
any liability for delay occaeioned in chang.
ing the roof of the building. He stated
that when The original daft was presented
10 him on April rs. 1891. he declined &c
align the same until he conferred with Mr..
Whalsn, and after doing 80 changes were
made In the original draft Of tho contract
so a. to conform TO his wishes. leaving ths
matter Of the liability Of the board on ao'
count of delay open. MI: Hoxev contra.
Of til. submission Of tho roof DON
tract and stated that II Was inn ossible
for Mr.. Grants statement to be correct
from the fact that or April 25, the date Of
the roof contract, he wal not . member OF
the board, and therefore the objections Il
the contract could not have been made q
stated by Mr.. Grant.
Architect J. l.. La Driere testified as te
the comparative value OF tho hardware
placed in the building with the hs'dwar,
called FOX by tho plans md specifications
The witness produced In the court room
ware. and In nearly eve Y instance the hard
ware used in the building wns from Is Il
200 per cent higher than tho hardware
called for by the specifications a. construed
by him. He further testified that the speci
tcations were vague and indefinite SO far d
of hardware which he produced were. ht
said, IN nearly every instance III
cheapest of the kind obtainable. Mr.
johnson was also called and testified
regarding the AMI in which the work o
finishing the building was conducted. H
said that owing to the condition OF th
hardwood finishing when deltvored. tn
work was car. led on to a great disadvan
taqe, increasing to a large degree the labo
and cost. He also testified about the worl
of repairing tho cement floor and said tina
the damage was caused by the bursting o
the water pipe in the winter of 1891 an
1892. Mr.. Paulsen WAS again put on III
stand by tho school board and consttue
spscineasions covering the hardware an,
said that in determining the kin of hard
vat to be used the general character o
tho building was to be tbs controlling Gle
msnt. At the close Of his testimony tn
court adjourned until two p. NJ. to-day .
that special fndings may be prepared 70
submission to the court aud instruction
covering the many legal questions who
arose during the trial.