The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-22

| made by this witness for use at The
former trial and concerning which h,
| testified: that il is section across the
| claims now in controversy: that upoI
this exhibit the veins, streaks anG
| workings are shown as this witnes.
| claims they existed at the time of tht
! former trial; that it shows the apex as
he claimed it existed at that time, anC
! the width of the lode and vein at vari.
| Gus depths to the S00-fooot level: that
! it shows at that point the apex of what
| is now CALLED the Rarus lode. part OF
| which was placed on the Pennsylvania
lode claim, and to show that it is now
! changed so as to make it much narrow
| er and to place it entirely on the Rarus
| that the cross section varies in many
| material particulars from what is made
to appear now, and that at the former
trial the witness testified that the
cross section was correct We desire
TO examine the witness on these varia =
tions aand let him explain them if he
can"
Judge Mediation objected to the offer
on various grounds, among which were
that it was not croSS-eXaminatiOn,
and that for purposes of Impeachment
the proper foundation had not been
laid.
Submit it without argument" said
Mr.. Patterson.
objection overruled." said the court.
We'll save an exception"
Mr.. Patterson next offered a cross
section map marked * K" which had
been made by the witness and used at
the former trial.
rs not this cross section X X prac-
tcally the same as section L used in
the present trial." asked Mr. Patterson.
1T is somewhere near the same
line"
rs it not practically the same?"
1T is nearly the same
will you say how wide you made
your apex on this cross section K K?"
An objection was sustained and Mr.
Patterson made another offer to prove,
which was also overruled.
A tracing made at the former trial,
and which had been marked by the wit
ness during his testimony in that case,
was next produced and submitted to
Mr. Macfarlane. but he could remember
nothing about it.
DO you mean to say that you are
entirely oblvious of it?''
Il have some slight recollection of it,
but can't remember what it was used
for"
Mr.. Macfarlane's testimony and the
proceedings at the former trial relative
to the tracing We're read from a tran
script, and the witness was then asked
if he could recollect, but he could only
identify his private marks on the trac-
ing. Mr.. Patterson made another offer
to prove. which was objected to and
ruled out.
Take the Witness" said Mr.. Patter-
son, and the long ross-examination
was concluded.
Judge Mediation took up the redi-
rect examination and he asked the wit
ness as to why he could not locate
cross section IN NJ on the big map,
and he replied that that cross section
was not shown on the map. The same
question was asked relative to cross
section * X" and then Mr. Patterson
objected and said the witness certainly
could not be cross-eXamined on a mat
ter that had been excluded from the ev-
idence by the court. The objection
was sustained and the answer to the
question about cross section IN n"
was ordered stricken out.
Judge Mediation asked the witness a
question relative to the ore and mineral
in the transverse assures or veins and
Mr.. Patterson objected on the ground
that nothing on that subject had been
brought out on cross examination. The
objection was sustained.
Then l understand that the defend
ants do not claim that the transverse
assures, even though they are filled