Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1896-03-15
TIL JONES CASE.
THE DEFENSE CLOSED YES
TERDAY.
The Court Crders a Grand jury
Drawn.

sin. Came to Nevada in -. Worked
in Virginia in the Con. Gel. & Va, Of
flee Was an assaYer in Candeiaria.
Went to the mint in 80, was sus-
pended in April, '95 My first term
expired June, 90. Was kept on until
change in 81. When Harris came in
he retained me us Asst. melter anGe;e-
f. er. Was clerk and bookkeeppr 10
him. First saw book, "Consolidation
Melt Record" in 1891; before tha7
time no such book was kept. l in
vented it myself for convenience Of Of
flee.
The book was kept on desk in Of
flee. There are three desks. One fer
meltpr and refner, n for clerk and
one for assistant, I don't know how
consolidation melt were kept before.
I examined this hook. Ny atteuti0n
was called to missing leaves in He
nNv's trial. Book was completed when
Harris got it. | was present at he
finding of spurious melt. I examined
this book then. I went to trace the
original melt. We made an eXamina-
ton Of the hook il took about an
hour: no leaves were out. Harris
was with me. Saw book next in He
nev case. I asked TO see book before
Henev case. hut was denied the right.
n t'ware or Raycraft !enjed. W.
never SAY spuri IL laelt tef,rA March
90, 1895. Was not in mint during vet
Element Of "a.
CrOss-oXamined: This book handed
me is IA record of consolidation m-Its.
Some were made in 1889. There ar"
some in my handwritinG The last
one is entered Marc". 1872! Son" 't-
tries Of figures are mine. This ho k
is refinery consoliaut'No -Wpeps It j.
a consolidation rec.,I also dated De
Z, 1888. Mr.. Harris assisted in tr.'-
ing the spurious melt. We %e,.;
through the records tocether0n March,
90. The consolidation record WAS
complete and he leaves had not been
extracted.
Clark. Why did you not trace melts
s.. O., 10, -?
Witness. NJ object in doing it.
Clark Could You trace them then?
Witness. Yr4.
Clark. Why did you not trace them
also?
Witness No occasion to, W S look
ing for No. 1854,
Clark. Was it not in some of these
melt~?
Witness, No sir.
Clark. The melt 1914 had not been
used?
Witness. No. 1t hadn't been sent
to the refinery.
Clark. Was anyone present when
the record was being examined?
Witness. Can't say.
No One was present when Mason
told me that a spurious melt had been
found. Testified in the Honey trial
regarding consolidation meIts, that
the record was complete when Harris
and I looked at the book.
Counsel then read from the Witness
previous testimony in the Henev trial
in which he swOra that he saw the
hook fer the last time in an unmuti-
lated condition, four or five days after
the discovery of the spurious bar,
March 30. Witness said if he SO
swOre he must have misunderstood
the question.
Clark. Did You not search the re
cords to see if No. 1914, the original
BOdin. had not gone to the refinery?
to see where the melt was. I was ear.
nestly e~ndeavorinG to find out all
about it with the rest.
Several extracts were read the wit.
ness from his previous testimony tC
show contradictions. He said he pre-.
vious testimony had been wrongly re.
ported or he had not understood the
7 questions.
Clark. IF No. 1914 had not been sem
to the refinery would Harris have any
object in destroying the record?
Witness. No. Can't see why any
one should have destroyed the record
except if II had gone to the refinery
the party who substituted the bogus
for the genuine melt would have ar
interest in destroying the record.
Ore Of the jurors asked the witness
regarding his invention Of the con
> solidation hook. as it had been showr
that it had been used in 1889. He ex
pl 4ined by saying that the book haC
beer rnlei in pencil prior to the time
but he had the rulings printed with