The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-04

4 UAlanCG Oh the AGl1Tlut NnIAi liz
was at the meeting stated. but didn't
recall any such conversation.
Then the blue prints were again
brought out and Judge Mediation asked
MIR. Soss to explain TO the jury how he
built the chimneys and iues IN the
scale or guide or the plans he followed
In the construction. He was asked II
Mcbride could have built up the CHM
news FIRST and then he (wftness) follow
up with the walls, and Soss said that
the chimney could have been run up to
any height desired independent Of the
walls.
Would that be proper construction
Yes. why not?"
The witness then explained his meth
cd Of erecting scaffolding and laying
brick generally. He also gave the mar
ket price Of pressed and common brick.
and explained how he built the Chin
neys and h a plaster is and Its re-
lation TO the chimney in the Ease In
question. Then he drew an outline Of
a wall. chimney and accompanying pi-
laster for the edihcation OF his inter-
rogator. and then the drift Of questions
turned in other channels. after which
the witness was turned over to his
counsel
Mr.. Cotter asked witness to explain
what is meant by brick work. In the
building trade, and Judge Mediation
entered an objection. which was over
ruled. Mr.. Soss replied that brick work
was common everyday brick work.
Then he told what a fiue was and said
hat a hue was n fue whichever way
10 ran. up or horizontally.
A. T. Morgan Of the school board
was sworn and took the witness stand.
Before he was questioned Judge Nc
Hatton moved to strike out certain por-
lions OF Mr.. Soss' testimony with refer
ence TO furnishing. material, etc, as set
forth I'm several causes OF his action as
being incompetent. Both sides argued
the question. and court adjourned for
the noon hour before the arguments
were completed.
The argument on Judge McHatton's
motion TO strike out portions of the tes-
timony was continued until $3.50 o'clock,
all of the counsel taking part in 1t.
Judge Knowles ruled adversely, say
ing that his construction OF the contract
was that Mcbride did the work up to a
certain point In the basement n that
the plaintiff was TO continue the work
said. indicated that that was the un-
Outstanding. and he believed that the
trustees considered the heating contract
separate from the main building con-
tract. He held that the plaintiff was
entitled TO recover for the work done
on the heating plant: that IL was no
part OF the original contract. IL the
walls were rewashed and other work
done after the completion OF the IN
tract. II was for the jury to decide as
to whether plaintiff should ecover. He
therefore denied the motion. and Judge
Mediation took exception.
Mr.. Morgan was then called to the
stand and said that he was n member
Of the board Of education in September.
1897. but had since resigned. In answer
to a question by Judge Mediation, the
witness said hat at the time he was a
member Of the board O'Brien was super
vising architect OF the High school
building. Attorney Cotter introduced a
copy of the special specifications OF the
heating and v~entilating apparatus and
read IL To the jury, after which MIR. Soss
was recalled to produce the figures re-
quired by counsel for the defendant.
He had measured up some OF his work
during the noon hour and produced a
string Of figures that differed from those
In his complaint. In the matter of
pressed brick his figures OF yesterday
were short. and the computation on the
common brick showed an excess. a big
excess, of figures, as compared with
those on which he bases a part of his
claim against the board. Judge Nc
Hatton asked him how he accounted for
the discrepancy n the witness re-
piled:
1--WE contractors make mistakes
sometimes. The only way we can get
Jobs now II by making mistakes"
He read the list Of figures he had pre-
pared during the intermission. but said
that he could not give all OF the infor-
nation desired. as the time for figur-
Ing on the work was too short To admit
Of a complete. thorough computation.
L - - l. a LII 49,
he might have been mistaken. hut he
was positive that the table he had just
prepared was correct.
Judge Mediation then asked him 10
state what IL COST him 10 rebuild the
cornice. re-wash the walls and reset
the wainscoting. His memory then
went back on him. He had nothing 10
show for the cost of the labor. His
foreman had, with the help Of two men.
washed the walls down. He paid his
foreman s. a day and laborers from
$3.50 to $3.50 a day. lie did not remem-
Der how much time was put in on these
particular Jobs. His foreman in charge
OF construction. Mr.. Francis. did his
figuring. n Mr.. Francis is now In
Helena. bossing the Job OF construct
ing the state house. The witness was
not able to produce the ~proverbial
stubs for the money he had paid out,
for Just before going to Europe he
burned all OF the old checks n stubs
along with other old papers. He did
not keep a systematic set Of books,
Attorney J. w. Cotter asked
him where his foreman was. and he
aid that he had charge of 40 men In
the foundation work OF the state capt.
toll and was consequently very busy
and could not well get away. Mr.. Cot
ter said that he must lay of and come
over here at once.
James Armstrong. a contractor. was
next on the stand and he read over the
same list OF figures that Soss did. He
said that Soss did the measuring and
that he did the figuring.
George f. DeSnell, the architect. who
first had charge Of the constructing OF
the high-priced school building, mex
testified and said that he prepared th'
plans and was the supervising archi'
teCt up 10 the time Mr.. O'Brien tool
charge. He told OF the transfer OF tn
contract from Mcbride to Soss anC
that the latter was supposed to begir
with the work where Mcbride left OF
- -. .-nH.H..l shA waaElG m tn