The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-17

is there any ore in this sample that
was showed Mr.. Bulky and that you
say came from Slope east of the east
fault p asked Mr.. Patterson.
Yes said the witness.
is there mixture of crushed and
broken material in thiso'
| Yes"
is it similar in appearance to the
matter between the faults?"
| Yes
From what distance may stope fill.
| ings be brought?"
From any part of the mine"
| Then. you don't know where this
| sample came from?''
No"
| The redirect examination was opened
by Mr.. Cotter.
The witness testified that the plaintiff
Kept the openings in the mine access
| sible from March, 1897, to recent date
| at great expense. and that during this
| period the openings were accessible to
| all parties.
state whether the south branch of
the north connecting vein is developed
up to the west fault" said Mr. Cot
| ter.
The witness said that the south
branch of the north connecting vein is
developed only up to within so feet of
the west fault.
Joseph c. Pyle, an assayer and chem
list Of Butte, who has followed the
business in Montana for u years, and
who is employed by the Colusa-Parrot
Mining company, took the stand. He
testified that he made some chemical
analyses of rock samples for Mr.. Tow
er, the plaintiffs geological expert. Mr.
Patterson objected to the witness tes-
tifying on the ground that it was not
rebuttal testimony, and he and Mr..
Cotter argued the question. The court
lad fI0 1T
ton was taken. The witness explained
that he had been instructed to make
complete analyses, but that the sam
pies were given him only last Wednes-
day and he had not had time. He gave
the results of the analyses. and de-
scribed the methods of his work. He
had used two methods, one with flu
sion and one without fusion
Under cross-examination by Mr.. Seal
Ion. the witness said that he had been
employed as an assayer about half the
time of his experience, and he ex-
planned in detail why he had not COM
pleted his determination.
George w. Tower. one Of the plant
ifs expert witnesses, took the stand.
Under objection by Mr.. Patterson.
overruled and excepted to, the witness
said that one sample was quartz por-
phyry from west of the west fault on
the $50 Rarus level. Mr. Patterson
lnell moved IndL the statement De
stricken out, on the ground that the
sample, not coming from the same
body of porphyry as Mr.. Kings por-
phyry samples, the analysis would not
tend to rebut Mr.. Kings analysis, and
the motion was sustained. A ruling
was made by the court that evidence
should be received only as to the sam
Piles taken from the same porphyry
bodies that furnished Mr.. Kings sam
pies. Mr.. Tower told where each of
these samples came from and ex-
planned their peculiarities.
Mr. Tower named the locality where
each of a number of samples came
from that We're shown to the defend
ants witnesses on crOss-eXamination.
This evidence was objected to by Mr..
Patterson. but the court overruled the
objection and an exception was taken.
The defendants witnesses expressed
their opinions on the characters of the
samples without knowing where they
came from. and Mr.. Towers evidence
was to show errors by relating the
rocks to certain formations, and by
telling what they We're in his opinion
The witness was on the stand when
the case was continued to o'clock
this morning.