The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-15
DO you think your counsel omitted
q aSk 1,nu q bout IL nj a LIZ %,

do you think your counsel omitted
to ask you about it intentionally?
Il don't know"
Don't you think this is an important
| matter?'
Il object" said Mr.. scallon. The
question is not proper The witness is
not party to the action
"Mr. Hughes contended to the court
| that the north and south lode was an
| important feature, and that he had a
right to learn about it. 1t had bsen
| sprung as surprise, sort of an am
| buscade.
Mr.. Patterson answered that no am
| buscade had been sprung. The plant
| ifs witnesses had all been cross exam
| ined with view to bring out that very
| point. The new issue, Mr.. Patterson
said. was not so remarkable thing as
the cutting up of a lode into veins or
Stats. as they had been called. between
suits The defendants counsel had a
perfect right not to ask the witness
about the cross-lode and Mr.. Hughes
had no right to speak harshly of tha
witness or counsel. The whole matter
would be sifted out in the trial Mr..
Patterson said that the opposing coun-
sci had no right to suggest traps and
plots and surprises, and that he re-
sented it; and that he hoped nothing
would occur to mar the harmony that
had so far existed.
Mr.. Hughes said that he only wanted
his question answered, and the court
overruled Mr.. Scallon's objection.
From a legal standpoint l think it
an important part of the case" said the
witness.
When did you take up the legal part
of the case?" asked Mr.. Hughes.
Lately" answered the witness.
Don't you think you are infringing
upon the office of counsel?" asked Mr..
Hughes.
Mr.. Patterson and Mr.. Scallon Wig
orously protested and objected to this
line of questioning, and the court told
the witness not to answer.
After this Mr.. Hughes read the testi-
mony of the witness given at the
Michael Dewitt trial.
In this evidence the witness had said
that the fiat vein has an east and west
strike
At this point Mr.. Corbett asked the
court for an order requiring the de-
PENDANT to produce a model used in the
Michael Dewitt case, so that it could
be used in connection with the cross
examination of Mr.. Hayes. The court
refused to grant the order, stating that
he had ruled the Michael Dewitt maps
out of the case at the request of the
plaintiffs counsel, and for that rea-
son he did not think 1t right to admit
Mr.. Hughes read more of the witness
testimony at the Michael Dewitt trial.
and the witness acknowledged having
given the testimony. In answer to a
question, he said the testimony was
true when given, and was still true
Mr.. Hughes next read some testimony
OF the witness in the injunction pro-
ceedings between the parties to the
present suit in May, 1898. The witness
said that the testimony, as read, was
his and was a correct statement at
the time, and was still a correct state
ment.
The witness said that the two veins
testified to in his Michael Dewitt testi-
mony were the fiat vein and another
vertical vein, which dips at an angle of
20 degrees He said that these veins
are independent veins. They are be-
tween the faults.
The witness said that the fiat vein
and the steep vein are $50 feet apart
at one point.
rs the intervening mass a part of
either?" asked Mr.. Hughes.
1T is not a part of either" said the
witness.
The witness gave the respective
widths of the veins at one point The
width of the fiat vein is so feet and