The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-12

that he did not represent the Nevada Mill
and Mine Company or Captain Egan and
announced his objection to proceeding
with the case, on the ground of non-ser-
vice of these defendants by the plaintiff.
Attorney Baggett responded to the OBJ
lection with the assertion that the pro-
ceeding at bar was not q new trial, but an
accounting and findings ordered by the
Supreme Court.
Mr.. Wood pressed his objection and the
court overruled it, to which overruling
counsel saved formal exception. He
then objected to the proceeding in the case
as against Hayward and Levy and the
Hobart estate, on the ground that final
!ud gment was passed by the Supreme
Court against Hayward and Levy on Sep
TENDER fast, and against the Hobart estate
Oh Septem Der IL.
Judge Hebbard said he would not at
tempt to override the Supreme Court, and
as that court had ordered him to hear this
second issue he would proceed to do so
and override this objection SO. Judge
Hebbard also overruled the still further
objection interposed by Mr.. Wood that the
hearing should not proceed on the ground
that other issues were pending in the Su-
preme Court precluding jurisdiction of the
lover court.
Mr.. Wood, having exhausted his grounds
for objection to the procedure, offered an
answer to the amended complaint and
Mr.. Rix made like offer on behalf of the
Hobart estate.
Mr.. Baggett declared that this was
purely an effort to delay the proceedings
and interfere with the administration of
justice III the premises, as the time for
pleading had passed.
Mr.. WOOD resented the imputation, but
the court denied the offer to further plead
permitting the documents to be marked as
exhibits merely.
ID m
A. b. thompson, secretary of the Hale
q Norcross Company, went on the witness
stand at the opening of the afternoon
session. His testimony was directed by
Attorney. Baggett to statement prepared
by Superintendent Joseph r. Ryan as to
ore worked in the month of May, 1895, and
to letters in the form of weekly statements
from superintendent Ryan to the witness
upon which the months statement was
based.
This statement represented $50 tons $40
pounds of ore, on which the railroad car
sample assayed $55 80 per ton. the battery
sample assayed $54 ~, producing S9061 in
bullion, and another will be introduced of
338 tons.
An effort of Mr.. Baggett to introduce the
statement as evidence in the hearing
brought Mr.. Wood to his feet instantly
with strenuous objections on the ground
that the statement of Mr.. Ryan was i'm
material, incompetent and irrelevant and
hearsay. Proceeding specifically, Mr..
Wood objected that the paper was imma-
teriaI to the issues and incompetent be-
cause 1t was mere statement of Superin-
tendent Ryan's, without proof or state
ment as to the truth or accuracy of it's con-
tents. There was no showing, he said, as
to how the samples were taken, nor any
circumstance connected with the taking
The same objection he applied to the as
says declaring further that there was no
proof that the samples had been taken or
assays made; that the percentage of yield
as presented in the statement was not sup
ported by any facts or circumstances.
Objection was further urged that the
ore referred to in the statement was milled
at a time long subsequent to the milling
of the ore in question in this hearing,
which by the pleadings and former testi-
mony was shown to have been mllled at a
period between March, 1888, and July,
1890. There was no proof Mr.. Wood con-
tended, that the ore mentioned in the
statement offered was of the same quality
or taken from the same part of the mine
as that in controversy in this inquiry, and
finally that 1t was an eX-parte declaration
of Ryans.
Mr.. Baggett answered the objection,
holding that it was utterly impossible to
ascertain the value OF the ores worked
several years ago except by surrounding
circumstances, the material circumstance
being that these ores referred to in the
statement offered in evidence came out of
the same mine. The statement, he said,