The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-18
THE objection is overruled,'' said the

THE objection is overruled," said the
| court.
There is crack in No. raise for a
way, then another crack said the wit
ness.
What do you say of a vein being fol-
lowed down that raise?"
There is none there"
The witness said that the sample Mr.,
Bulky, defendants witness, had
called mud, from a fault fissure, was
common clay, and bears no likeness to
the Tower sample, which the witness
called quartz porphyry. He added that
several bets had been made on this
point. but he was cut short in this
statement by an objection from Mr..
Patterson.
Under an objection by Mr.. Patter-
son, overruled by the court, he said
that the slides shown by him to Mr..
King. while the latter was on the wit
ness stand, as samples of secondary de-
position, contained pyrites and chalco-
cite; also corvellite and bornite. There
were no crystals of pyrite in the slides.
he said only cracked grains cementei
by secondary chalcocite.
ITO your mind, what do these ele-
ments indicator" said Mr.. Cotter
Mr.. Patterson objected, the objection
was overruled and he took an excep-
ton.
1.-THE slides and the samples out of
which they were made both show sec
ondary deposition of ore" said the wit
ness.
The slides and the samples We're ad-
mitted in evidence against the objection
of Mr.. Patterson, oyerruled by the
court.
Mr.. Tower stated that he had exam
ined Mr.. Kings slides of quartz por-
phyry and slides of individual clay. He
said that the quartz porphyry slides
in
and that the indurated clay slides, so
called by Mr.. King, were altered por-
phyry and not indurated clay.
The witness was asked to describe the
formations and localities in the mine
where he got the samples from which
his own microscopic slides were made.
Mr.. Patterson objected, the objection
was overruled and the witness gave the
desired informal ton, saying that his
slide samples were taken from the
same formations and spots that sup
piled Mr.. Kings. He described the min
eral constituents of the slides and they
We're admitted in evidence against the
objection of Mr.. Patterson, which was
oyerruled.
Mr.. Tower you said you examined
Mr.. Kings microscopic slides. What
experience have You had in microscopic
work." asked Mr.. Cotter.
Harvard, and / have studied the sub
ject a great deal since I left college.
have examined 1000 or 5000 slides prob
ably said the witness.
He stated that the country between
the faults, called horse by Mr.. King,
is not a horse. He proceeded to give
his reasons for his opinion, when Mr..
Patterson objected.
IF your honor please. I object to this.
This witness has right to say what
the interfault area is. and to say
whether it is horse or not, but he has
no right to tell all about the relations
of this horse said Mr. Patterson.
The court permitted the witness to
explain. He was interrupted by many
objections and motions to strike out
by Mr. Patterson, most of which We're
overruled.
After the testimony in chief of the
plaintiffs expert witness, Mr.. McFar-
lane, had been read to determine what
evidence had been received in chief on
the subject from him, the court ruled
that Mr.. Tower should not testify about
the faults
The cross-exa tfon was opened by
Mr.. Patterson.
The witness testified that the rock
from which his secondary deposition