The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-28
SKETCHLS

used to talk with Flood about the affairs of
the mine, ard also asked the advice of
Mackay in certain contingencies, but gen.
orally Flood.
''Mr. Flood" continued the witness,
"was very careful about giving me any
orders or influencing me. He told me to do
the right thing and use my own Judgment
and the judgment of the directors"
Counsel read from witness testimony in
the Hale d Norcross suit on various mat
tiers pertaining to his relations with these
parties and examined him at great length
regarding the proposition made by Senator
Jones about the change in the contract, as
to Jones having been put to q great deal
of expense and since they had struck a
good body of ore he ought to have a new
contract and more money for milling the
ore.
'I remember being present at the meet
ing" said the witness, land that the prop
osition was read to the board of directors.
Jones asked for 81 ton and they allowed
him So.
The $4,000 shares of stock that became
the property of the company by purchase
at delinquent sale, the witness said he sold
at 81 share by order of the board of direc-
tors. He said Flood did not ask him to do
that.
On cross-examination by Attorney Deal
the witness was asked if he had any ac-
fornia & Virginia Mining Company was
controlled by Flood and Mackay2
"No, sir, The replied. II never had any
such idea. The company WAS controlled
by the board of directors"
"You used the word supposed Did
you testify from your actual knowledge or
from what you were toldP"
"It depends upon how you use the word
"But it is the word suppose refer to.
Did you suppose or knowp Was it from
your own knowledge?"
Eyes"
Judge Seawell Intercepted the writer az
to whether he knew at the time of the ex-
tension of the Jones contract in 1885-86-S7
that Mackay, and Flood were interested in
the Comstock Mill and Mining Company?
81 did not" was the reply.
Asked by Mr.. Sieberst if he knew any
thing of the condition in the first Jones
contract for the furnishing of car-sample
assays, the witness said he did not remem-
Der about that contract.
sIn the first contract" said Mr.. Sieberst,
"Senator Jones was required to give bonds.
Why were not bonds required on the second
contract?"
"That is question / cannot answer
Then Mr.. Deal took the witness and
showed that under the first contract Jones
did the mining and offered bonds to pro-
tect the company in that particular, and
the subsequent contracts were simply mill
ing contracts.
aWelI, we will drop that subject" said
Mr.. Sieberst.
81 should think you would" retorted
Mr.. Deal.
Witness testified that under the contract
of December "a, 1885, Senator Jones paid
all the expenses of mining.
"Were they paid back to him?': asked
Mr.. Sieberst. isn't there report in the
company's office to the effect that the COM
pany paid the expenses"
81 do not remember distinctly what &C.
Cured fifteen years ago."
THAT was not fifteen years ago; it was
in 1886. Isn't there report to that effect2"
81 think not
Counsel for the defense submitted that
the report was the best evidence, and asked
that they be instructed to produce it.
Witness admitted that when requested
by Flood or Mackay he went to the office
to confer with them.
On the resumption of the cross-examins-
ton he said he did the same for all persons
who desired knowledge or conference if
they were owners of stock, and that any,
body was free to visit the mine, needing no
permit from him.
John W. Mackay was called, and testi-
fed at great length as to his connection
with the company and his relations with
Senator Jones. He said he owned ten
shares Of the Con-. Cal. & Va. stock and
that he was member, during its life. of
the firm of Flood & O'Brien, and had
other business relations with Flood. Mr..
Mackay could not remember clearly
whether he was here in 1885 at the time
the contract was made with Senator Jones.
He said he would look over his books or
otherwise refresh his memory, and might
be able to state later.
~ have not been in Virginia Citv.n he