The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-21
N THE DISTRICT COURT.
OWNERSHIP OF THE NOTES
Other Dnginsers Testify to What II
Considerod Customary IN euoh
Mstssu-rhs Mas Belong 70
the Company.


b Company.
C. o. Waterman. defendant IN the suit
on TRIAL In Judge Lindsay's department
Of the district court. In which the N.
o. p. company seeks to regain poeses-
sion Of . lot Of maps and Surveyor
notes Of its mining properties made by
Batterman while in its employ. came In
for a gentlemanly roast by several wit
neeses.
August Christian. engineer for the
Anaconda company. was the first wit
ness on the stand yesterday morning.
and was asked as to h ownership Of
maps and notes made by an engineer
In the employ Of . mining company,
and he replied that nc engineer WORKING
on . salary had any right to such maps.
and . no right to disclose any In
formation he obtained while in such en-
ploy.
1T 10 not custom. but rather 4 ques-
ton OF honor among engineers. Is II
not?' asked Mi. Forbis on cross-exam-
ination. mo-" was the reply. mo
engineer has q right to such property
after he leaves the employ Of a COM
pany. and Q man who would not turn
over his notee-"
Mr.. Christian was not allowed to.nn-
ish his opinion OF q man who would not,
for he was interrupted by Mr.. Forbis.
John b. Giilie, another mining engi-
neer, said II was the custom TO turn
notes over to the company after an en-
gineer leaves its employ.
"An notes are strictly the property OF
the company you work for" said Mr..
ellis. They are strictly private, and
no one else has a right to them unless
through the court and permission OF
the company"
F. A. Heinze was recalled. and said
that while Batterman was in his employ
he did a great deal more than survey.
He occupied the position Of confidential
and consulting engineer. He offered
to go to work as surveyor for 500 a
month, but Heinze paid him $500 a
month. which indicates that he was not
employed as an ordinary surveyor. Mr..
Heinze was asked when ne first became
suspicious OF Bstterman. and he said
his suspicious were aroused when a
member Of the b. & NJ. company told
him that ever since Batterman had been
in the employ of the NJ. o. p. COM |
pany he was negotiating with the r.
& NJ. for employment. Mr.. Heinze was
asked by Mr.. Forbis what other reasons
he had. and he proceeded to give furth-
VI TcdSOHs IOF his mlstTust Oh Batter
man, but was stopped.
II vas not only disappointed In the
man." said Mr.. Heinze. but I was dis
eusted. as his acts were not the acts
of an honorable man. He was not
offered a job by the Il. & NJ. company,
but he offered himself. and the Lew
isohn brothers told me that the chief
reason why they employed him was be- |
cause he had been employed by me-"
Mr.. Hefnze said that the resulting ac-
tions OF the b.. & NJ. company went to |
show that Batterman's advice permeat- |
ed them. For several months before
he left the employ OF the M. o. p. COM
pany his advice was never needed, but
before that his directions were practi-
cally followed in everything. There
were So many confidential matters that
Mr.. Batterman knew from me-" said
Mr.. Heinze. that as an honorable man
he could not have sought employment
from the p. q NJ. company"
After Batterman left the M. o. p.
company and entered the employment
OF the II. & NJ. he served notice on Mr..
Heinze through another employee OF the
b. & NJ. hat he would not be bound
by anything. but intimated he would
use Of the knowledge he pos
sessed.
II believe I am justified in believing"
sal Mr.. Heinze, that he betrayed
tCfiiiuSHtc L tNeT TSposcu III hifns
by any direct acts of his own. blu
by the actions Of the Il. & NJ. com
pany."
Mr.. Heinze said he had offered Bat
$4,000 q year to have him re-
with the NJ. o. p. company. even
after he had learned to mistrust him.
knew that IN salary he could pay
him would be cheap. as Batterman. by
the other side. could damage
the NJ. o. p. company several hundred
thousand dollars on account OF knowl-
he obtained In confidence. especial
ly concerning negotiations for the pur-
chase OF certain mining property.
John MacGinnis testified that he ar
ranged with Batterman as to the salary
should receive. and $500 were Bat
terman's own figures. c. 8. McHenry
was employed as surveyor at Batter
mans suggestion. as the w were
The NJ. o. p. company paid
Batterman's ONCE expenses.
A. p. Heinze and John Birmingham
testified regarding the work done by
Batterman and h position he occupied
the company.
c. s. McHenry, the next witness,
made the interesting statement that
had severed his connections with the
NJ. o. p. company. having resigned his
on Sunday.
The TRIAL will be resumed this morn
Ing.
Turkish and plain baths at Amos.
n.@>A-~- 80 NHsSn tr~>t