The San Francisco call., 1895-11-13
IN THE INTEREST OF FOX.
Evidence of a Difference in Hale
& Norcross Mill
Returns.
DEFENDANTS GAIN A POINT.
Secretary Edwards of the Overman
Mine Not Permitted to
Testify.

dll pO1 bduL ldCl, anu tue QtIEnaanLS
scored point. The object of the hearing
on the plaintiffs part to show that the
mill returns on the ore in controversy were
30 per cent lower than at other periods
was partially accomplished by the evi-
dence of Mr.. Thompso2, secretary Of the
Hale & Norcross, he showing returns of 65
per cent as against the 81 per cent on the
ores in controversy.
The noint scored by the defendants was
the refusal OF the court TO admit reports OF
the Overman mine as corroboratiYe testi-
mony.
The balance of the series OF letters pre-
sented on Monday showing the weekly re-
ports of Superintendent Ryan, including
those which covered the October state
ment OF 33S tons of ore, were presented at
the morning session. When that was
done Mr.. Wood interrogated the witness,
Secretary Thompson, as TO the method of
taking the wagon samples and railroad
car samples which formed the material for
the assays referred to.
The sampler was a skilled man who was
paid 50 a day and employed because of his
knowledge OF ore sampliug. He used an
iron "tryer," with which he dug into the
ore at various portions of the lot, drawing
out the soft or finer dirt; then, if there
was any rock in the lot, samples OF that
would be picked out. These samples were
carried 10 the drying-room and there
ground fine and made into a pulp to be as
sayed.
The amount and value of the OUTPUT of
the Hale & Norcross mine for the eight
years ending January, 1874 formed the
next topic OF inquiry ana the proceeding
on this matter occupied the balance Of the
mOrN1nr Mr. TbnDn
sented the facts to the satisfaction Of the
plaintiffs counsel, but under the obiec-
tions of the counsel for the defendant as
TO The method of arriving at the amount
and value OF the output This testimony
was based upon q tabulated statement in
the thirteenth annual report of the Hale
d Norcross Company, printed in pamphlet
form, dated February %, 1874.
Mr.. Wood objected TO the admission of
the testimony because witness had based
statements on this memorandum made
twenty years ago. though it was shown
that the original statement was made bY
Mr.. Thompson and that the printed re-
port was from copy he had furnished the
printers. The objector centended that the
statement was hearsay testimony and that
1t was the presentation of the result of
assays pUrporting TO have been made by
an assayer and not by proofs OF the assay,
nor by certificate of assay, but by state
ments made by the assayer TO the witness.
He contended that the paper was not made
by the defendants in the case, but made
long years before these defendants had
any interest in the Hale 81 Norcross
ground.
Your Honor is not going to accept as
proof" continued Mr.. Wood, ''the state
ment of Mr.. Thompson as to the truth of
those assays, as an absolute demonstra-
ton OF the accuracy of those ASSAYS"
But his Honor did takesMr. Thompson's
word for 1t, and overruled the objection
holding that 1t was merely a circumstance
IN determining the value of the assays and
other points on which the court must de-
clare a finding of facts
This IS recOrd-a part OF the history
of the company" said Judge Hebbard.
found in the archives in the company 5
Office. do not see any good objection to
the courts having the benefit OF that
record to determine these points For
that reason it viii be admitted, and also
for the reason that some OF the old direc-
tors are defendants in this case"
Mr.. Thompson testified that he prepared
the statement from the books and papers
IN the Office Of the company, and it showed
the average assay value by wagon sample
assays from 1866 10 1869 and ralroad-car
sample assays from 1869 to 1874.
The output for the eight years, as shown
by the witness from the statement, was
--pJsO-J IOI1S ~ pCQlluS. i ne AVERAGE
assay value was $38 u per ton. The aver
age percentage OF returns, 65A. The per
centage Of gold was $12 Il; OF silver. $26 Is.
1t was the rule made by the company
that If the mills did not show return Of
63 per cent they were compelled to make
the deficit good, according to Mr.. Thomp-
sons testimony. And Mr.. Wood asked
him If the milling companies did not ''go
broke IN treating that ore. Mr. Thomp-
son replied that some OF them lost money,
but in reply to questions by Mr. Baegett
he said that on the whole pody of ore they
sometimes returned as high as IS per cent.
and IN instances GS and 20 per cent. The
price OF milling was $14 a ton.
They did not lose dollar from the price
OF milling on this contract did they ?''
asked Mr.. Baggett.
mo, sir. " replied the witness.
Ward /. Edwards, secretary of the Over
man Mining Company, was called by the
plaintiff at the opening of the afternoon
session. Mr.. Edwards carried an armful
OF documents, with which the plaintiff
proposed to show in connection with the
testimony of the witness that the percent
age of mill returns for that mine during
period from July, 1889. to February,
1889, was 76.46 per cent from an aggregate
output OF nearly 81, 900 tons OF ore. on a
car-sample assay OF SIS so per ton.
The testimony was sought to be intro
OOCtb Al NOiIi fjtiISOI VIII the percentage
OF returns from the Hale 81 Norcross for
the period, covered by this suit. from De-
cember, 1887, to July. 1894. on $1,000 tons.
The percentage OF mill returns on an assay
valuation of $39 per ton was 81 per cent.
Having shown by the testimony of Mr..
Thompson, at the morning session, that
the percentage of returns from Hale &
Norcross on the eight years output ending
January, 1874, was 6534 per cent on an
assay valuation of S38 27 per ton, the
plaintiffs counsel desired to corroborate
this with the Overman showing, which
mine is, of course, on the Comstock lode.
Mr. Wood objected on the ground that
the books and record OF the Overman
were outside Of this inquiry, not being a
part of the property in controversy. Mr.
Baggett contended that only by compari-
son could the plaintiff establish the value
of the ores milled.
Judge Hebbard said in sustaining the
objection that the argument of Mr.. Wood
was very strong against the introduction
of that kind of evidence. He continued:
At this time l am not prepared to say that
the argument is not sound, though there was
good deal Of this sort of evidence in the main
trial OF this case. But it seems to me that
9 chouId en- oh statements he T1reser tod from