The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-18

Mr.. Mediation wanted to show, as a
matter of law, that the defendants were
not entitled to hold the plaintiffs wit
nesses, but the court ordered the attor-
neys to proceed with the trial.
Mr.. Patterson then took up the cross
examination of Mr.. Macfarlane and
asked him where he was educated. and
he said he graduated at the age of IS
from a training school in Scotland and
studied for one year at some other
school and then went into railroad work
as civil engineer, which he followed
in Scotland and this country up to
about 1885. In that year he first took
up mining engineering with the Ana
conda company. He never followed or
studied at school the usual branches
required for mining engineer, and his
knowledge of mining was acquired in
the mines. Mr.. Patterson asked the
witness if he had ever done any mining
engineering before he entered the en-
ploy of the Anaconda company, and he
said he had been with the Union Pacific
Railroad company and was engaged in
laying out new lines in the Rocky
Mountains.
That is distinct from mining engi-
neering. however" said Mr.. Patterson
You might run some hines over mines
but that is about as near as you would
come to it,
Inc Wll1lesS Sdlu tIldl Wliell He eli
tered the employ of the Anaconda COM
pany he took charge of the engineering
work of the company and the construc-
ton of the smelters at Anaconda, and
remained with the company for seven
years. For one year, he said. he had
entire charge of the Anaconda proper
ties and operations, Mr.. DAILY having
left everything in his charge.
After leaving the Anaconda company
the witness engaged in mining engi-
neering on his own account and later
entered the employ of the Montana Ore
Purchasing company, and for two years
had charge of it's mining operations.
He quit the company's employ as such
last June and devoted his time entirely
to the companys mining litigation.
While he was in charge Of the COM
pany's mining operations he constantly
kept in mind the litigation, because it
was not necessary to forget it.
The witness was then questioned re-
garding his maps, which had been pre-
pared for the trial under his directions.
Among the number prepared were nine
cross-section maps, of which only five
were brought into court.
why We're not the other four
brought? ?" asked Mr.. Patterson.
probably because it was thought
they were not necessary for the pur-
poses of this case" said Mr.. Macfar-
lane.
Was it because it was believed they
would show a conflict with your testi-
mony and create a confusion"
mo, sir; the maps and model here
are complete"
In answer to a number Of questions
as to the connection and identity of the
three veins in the Johnstown ground.
the witness said that the vein known as
the North Connecting vein joins the
Rarus vein in the Johnstown ground al
what is known as the junction shaft.
From that point eastward the two veins
are one, the Connecting vein taking the
rs degree dip of the Rarus. while west
of the junction the Connecting vein has
a vertical dip There is another apex
north of the united veins. and east of
the junction, but the witness had no
name for it. He said he would not call
it a continuation of the North Connect
ing vein.
"Of course you would not call 1T that,
but might some one else not do so?"
mo. sir; the dip is different from
that of the Connecting vein. 1t has a
dip of about S. degrees. The vein is
about four feet wide"
In answer to other questions the Wit
ness said the vein mentioned he re-
garded as part of the Rarus vein and it
Joined the latter at a point about so