The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-03
SECRET MINING HISTORY
How MaCkay's Partners Chose
a Board of Directors for
Company.
WORDY WAR OF ATTORNEYS
the Great Bonanza Mining
Suit.

Three new witnesses were placed on the
stand yesterday in the suit of Theodore
Fox VS.. John w. Mackay ct al and three
of the former witnesses added to their pre-
vious testimony.
During one stage of the proceedings
there was quite an exciting episode be-
tween Attorneys Sieberst and Deal, lead
ing attorneys for the plaintiff and defend
ants respectively, which resulted in an
apology to the court and defiance to the
plaintiffs counselor.
Clerk Lowell was called to the stand on
the opening of court and under cross
examination testified that the average
value of the ore milled during November,
1890, was $14 IL and that its average yield
per cent was 1888, and that for December,
1890, the value of the ore averaged $14 20
per ton and the average yield per cent was
1853.
He was then asked the gross yield for
the period between January l, 1886, and
Decent Der 1, 1891.
Objection was made by PLAINTIFF coun-
sci, which was overruled by the court, and
IN exception was noted.
Witness then gave the following as the
early yield of bullion from the Consoli-
, dated California and Virginia mine for the
Wears from 1886 to 1891 inclusive, the year
ending with September 80: 81, 4S2, 624 SO,
S3, SIS, 1888 90, 81 400, 1913 70, So, 1921, 1856 80,
1,749,305 OF. For October, 1891, the yield
+as ST. 272 20; November, 1891, SOL POP So;
December, 1891, sos, 551 90.
During the period between January l,
$780, and January 1, 1891, the discount on
,ilver ranged from 16 to 80 odd per cent.
Taxes were also paid from the receipts Of
bullion.
Attorney Sieberst again took hold of the
witness, who testified that sometimes the
difference between the car and battery as
says would be as much as Sc.
Objection was made to this line of exam
ination, and Attorney Sieberst explained
to the court that he desired to show that
ore which assayed 81 81 could not be milled
at profit when it cost Sc for milling, 81
for royalty to the Sutro Tunnel Company,
so cents for hosting to the surface and de-
Quoting the discount on silver
Continuing his examination he elected
from Clerk Lowell that while he knew there
were times when ore was being milled at q
loss, he failed to demonstrate with the su-
perintendent of the mine for the reason
that he considered it none of bis business
to do so. He paid for the milling without
Directing to the fact that it was done at
loss, because such payment was made I'M
der instructions OF his superior.
His attention was next called to the fact
that the monthly statement rendered dur
ing the years 1856 to 1891 inclusive showed
that % odd tons Of ore had been milled
which returned less than 70 per cent of the
assay value, which was violation of the
contract, but for which Sc or 81 had been
paid for milling.
Witness Lowell replied that the return
of one month was not far test of the
work performed by the mill, as the per-
centage of several months must be taken;
that is, correct percentage can only be
obtained by averaging the returns up to
the time the final run and cleanup is
made. The milling bill was paid each
month, even when the percentage of
bullion was lower than the contract pro-
vided for, as the company, he said felt
confident, in view of what the mill had
done before, that this falling off would be
made up in the next few months. The
company in San Francisco received its
monthly statements from which could be
obtained the information that the mill
had not returned bullion up to the con-
tract limit, but this information was not
specifically stated in the report.
The witness entered the employ of the
Consolidated California and Virginia Min
ing Company on the request of Mr.. Fair.
On recross-examinati by Mr.. Deal wit
ness quoted from copies of reports which
he had before him, showing the yield per
cent for the six years between 1856 and
1891. They were as follows: 1870, 1896,
S1.05 81.33, 1918, 77.69. On objection by
plaintiffs counsel he explained that he
wanted to show that the isolated cases
cited by plaintiff, in which less than 20 per
cent of bullion was returned, were not fair.
At this juncture Attorney Sieberst's
numerous and sometimes premature OBJ
oil ad ho
OF his legal opponent, who angrily sug-
gested that he withhold his objection until
the entire question had been stated.
Sieberst replied that witness was so anx-
ious and ready to answer that he had to
anticipate somewhat the conclusion of the
interrogatory.
This raised Deals choler, and he ap-
pealed to the court to protect the witness
from what he called the unfair aspersions
of plaintiffs attorney. Then, turning
quickly around, he addressed Sieberst. say
ing: You can't appreciate witness of
this kind. You are not worthy to tie his
shoe-latchets."
To this Sieberst replied: ''That is
neither a sensible nor decent criticism of
my conduct, nor does it show proper respect
to the court"
Deal, addressing the court, said: 81
apologize to your Honor AS to whether
/ apologize to him or not, he can call on
me if he wishes.
Sieberst concluded this brief but danger
Gus passage-at-arms by informing his an
tagonist that he was not a dangerous man.
This virtually put an end to the ex-
animation of Witness Lowell.
George Frier, who had formerly been
employed in the Nevada bank, and also as
Floods private bookkeeper for period of
years, beginning in 1887, testified that he
was elected director of the Con. Cal &
Va. Mining Company October IL. 1895. but
did not know at whose request he became
a director. nor did he know who paid
for the stock he held at that time.
Attorney Sieberst-Didn't Mr.. Flood pay for
the stock that was in your name?
Witness-I can't remember.
Did you ever draw out large quantity of
stock from the Consolidated California and
Virginia Mining Company?
Ican't remember.
The record shows that on August IL, 1886,
you drew out $3.50 shares of its stocks
] don't remember.
This stock was delivered to J. F. Bigelow
Was he not connected with the Nevada Bank?
He was the accountant, believe. don't re-
member.
Attorney Deal-Tne records show that this
stock was made out to George Grant. trustee,
and delivered TO Bigelow.
Sieberst-Did you place the $3.50 shares of
stock with the secretary which were delivered
to Mr.. Bigeiow?
Witness-I don't know.
Continuing the witness said that Cor