The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-29

| Eureka mill worked up 1881 100000 tons
of ore. The average returns from the mill
during June, 1856. were 1925 per cent of
the battery assay value. This also cost S.
to mill, and 81 royalty had 10 be paid on
it. The mill was always paid in United
States gold coin. For November, 1890, the
average bBttery assay value of the ore
ginia mine was $18 35 and the percentage
of yield was 1888. Milling cost So at this
time. For December, 1890, the average
battery assay value was $18 II and the per-
centage of yield was 1868
Other instances of low grade ores were
cited by the plaintiffs attorney and the
continuance OF this performance at last
brought Attorney W. E. f. Deal of the
defense to his feet with an appeal to the
court, claiming that the citing of isolated
cases to show that ore was milled at a loss
to the mining company was unfair; that
the operations of the entire period in ques-
ton, from January /, 1886, to January,
1892, should be placed in evidence to show
that profits were made by the mining CON-
pany and that dividends were paid by it
during that period.
The examination of the witness was
resumed. He testified that the price of
milling varied during the period between
1888 and 1891 from S. to 81.
AT the opening of the afternoon session
5. 2. Holden. who has been an ore buyer
and dealer in mining machinery for thirty
years, was placed on the stand. He testi-
fed to the prices of quicksilver during a
period of eight years as follows: In 1884 it
was worth $50 so flask of 76l pounds; in
1885, $50 25; in 1885, $35 so; in 1887, $40 25;
in 1888, S42 80; in 1889, $40; in 1890, $50 so;
in 1891, $45 Is.
Attorney Sieberst asked him what percen-
tage of their battery assay value ores should
h,1l1 ". 4
Deal, who soon had the witness in posi-
ton where he admitted that his knowledge
on this subject was derived from hearsay
and official reports, and that he was not a
practical millman. Objection was then
made to his competency as a witness on
this point, and the court sustained the OBJ
lection, counsel for plaintiff noting an
exception.
Continuing the witness testified that the
Consolidated California and Virginia ores
were of the kind known as free milling"
What is a fair percentage of bullion,
based on the pulp assay, that should be
returned from the mill ~ was asked.
This was again objected to, the objection
sustained and an exception noted. At
torney Sieberst repeatedly made efforts to
show the competency of witness to testify
on this point, even referring to the Hale &
Norcross case recently decided by the SUI
preme Court, in which Holden was also
witness, to sustain his contention, but
without avail. He then essayed a new
trick by asking:
"How low grade of ore, by car assay,
can be taken from the Consolidated Cali
fornia and Virginia mine and be milled
and return profit to the mining COM
pany?"
Objection was made and sustained on
the ground that the witness had no per-
sonal knowledge of the character of the
ores or cost of mining.
Sieberst tried again.
fDo you know whether ore assaying,
from car sample, $14 to the ton would pay
the mine and mill?'
Before witness could reply Attorney Deal
interposed with:
"Do you know what the expenses are for
working mine from your own expert
ence?"
mo" was the answer.
Objection was made and sustained, and
an exception noted.
What would be a fair price for milling
ore taken from the Consolidated California
and Virginia or other Comstock miner"
This query met the same fate as its i'm
mediate predecessor. This episode was re-
enacted several times before Attorney
Sieberst showed encouragement and gave
up the attempt to get the opinion of the
witness as to the value of Consolidated
California and Virginia ore or the cost of
mining and milling the same.
On cross-examination witness testified
that he visited the Eureka and Morgan
mills while they were in operation; that
samples for assaying were properly taken;
that the mills were efficient.
Asked whether it paid to mine and mill