The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-01

tE
time. and that the witness account OF
IL should not be accepted as evidence.
Mr.. Cotter agreed with the opposition
that the records of the meeting We're
the best evidence of was done
but in case the clerk mad omissions
on his minutes. the absence of UGH
material evidence on the record should
not preclude the introduction Of indi-
vidual testimony.
The court took the matter under con-
sideration after which Mr.. Soss. at the
direction OF his Ounsel explained to
the jury the mysterious marks which
made up the plans of the big chool
house. He explained those Inc which.
indicated the rubble work and the
brick work and where the rock work
ends and the brick work begins. the
water tables, cut stone and trimmings,
etc.
Mediation objected to the question OF
Mr.. Cotter as to the thickness OF
walls in buildings generally. as he con
tended that IL had no bearing on the
issue at bar: that such matters were
treated in the specifications. Over
ruled. Then a copy of M advertise
ment for bids for the construction Of
the house was offered In evidence. n
an objection to 1t by Mediation was
overruled.
Mr.. Cotter asked the witness what
was the meaning OF foundation n
what was the top of a foundation wall.
TO which Judge II objected.
The court admitted the question and
Mr.. Soss told VIA n foundation was
In building parlance.
Mr.. Cotter-State what work you per-
formed under the Mcbride contract on
the south and west walls.
Judge Mediation entered an objection,
saying that the contract determines
what work was 10 be don by the plain
tin in the case. He argued that II was
Incompetent and not within the issues
made by the ~pleadings. He cited au-
thorities In support Of his contention
and laid especial stress upon an opin-
ion OF the state supreme court In the
case of the contractor OF the Granite
block in Helena against Kleinschmidt.
in which. however. there was a dis
senting opinion by Associate Justice
This dissent was taken up by Mr..
Cotter to support his claim In the mat
ter. and he read II. At the conclusion
OF the recital court took a recess till
. o'clock.
MI. Cotter continued TO cite authori-
ties and concluded by saying that while
the opinion of the supreme court was
a binding question on that court, the
opinion was not binding In deciding the
question now before this court. Judge
Mediation read allegations of the COM
plant at issue to show that I'm COM
parison the case at bar was a stranger
one than that before the supreme court.
The court overruled the objection and
Mr.. Soss took the stand and proceeded
to tell what work he did to complete
that part of McBride's contract up TO
the water tables. He described the
character of the work he did and the
amount he charged the board for IL n
said that ne had received no amount in
payment for the work.
10 hn nNT MN nnnfnand hnFAEA hn
very soon found himself mixed up in
an almost inextricable mass Of confu-
sion. and IL was next to impossible for
nyone 10 understand just where he
stood with the school board by the time
Judge Mediation got thoroughly started
on his cross-examination Of the witness.
He was what they term in the court
room a poor witness"
In answer To a question OF his coun-
sci. j. w. Cotter. he said that he rebuilt
the cornice and reset some marble
wainscoting according TO the direction
Of Architect O'Brien. He said that all
OF the work had been accepted by the
board. but that he had received no
money for the extra work ne had lone.
He then told about presenting his bill
To the school board. who refused to pay
Il: tina OBrien showed him an esti-
mate which he tO'Brien) considered am
pie for all extra" work per-
formed. II submitted a proposition OF
arbitration TO the board and Chairman
Long said IL was all right. But O'Brien
whispered in Longs ear; then Long
said. No. we won't arbitrate.' The
board then told me IL ] would not ac-
cept O'Brien's estimate as final | could
go ahead and sue
Mr.. Cotter offered in evidence copies
Of the minutes OF the meeting Of the
board on the dates. Sept. 10, Oct. !, II,
n. IL and Il. 1896. to show that the
trustees had ordered certain work done.
Judge Mediation objected TO their in
PRODUCTION on the ground that 1t was
irrelevant and immaterial. but the OBJ
lection VAS overruled and Mr.. Cotter
read the minutes to the Judge.
No startling revelations were made In
them: In fact. Mr.. Cotter admitted be-
fore he had all OF them that portions Of
them were quite Irrelevant.
on cross-examination Judge McHat-
ton asked Mr.. Soss to explain the mean
ing Of certain marks on the plans relat-
ing 10 rubble and brick work. and asked
him n he always was guided wholly by
the lines on the plans or by both the
lines and specifications. Then IL devel-
oped that Mr.. Soss was really confused.
He could not remember just when and
where he began work on the founda-
ton: did not always refer to spcCifica-
tons, nut usually WORKED from suGses-
lions offered by the plans. The more
he was Intercepted the worse he be-
came mixed up. He referred to the plans
In the course OF his testimony To show
where marks had been made 20 indicate
that the portion Of the foundation was
10 he OF brick and was not sure whether
the marks had been placed there before
the contract had been assigned TO him
by McBrida
Asked about the bills ne presented 10
the board after he had completed the
Job for which he now charges in excess
OF s., 1900. without this charge being odd
ed TO them. he said that he supposed
the board would pay after awhile. Asked
why he rendered the above mentioned
bills subsequently with the 1900 charge
added. he said that he wanted his
money. The questions came too fast
for him and when he was asked why
ne did this or hat particular piece II
] work he said Mr. Morgan or some other