The San Francisco call., 1901-10-22

bury. Then came the Mclaughlin objec-
ton again. and further argument.
1T is difficult to remember the exact
words further than I have stated them, -
said Hume. ''The trend of the conversa-
ton was based on statements to which
have testified. The writ was considered
void and the conversation showed dis
position to avoid the writ"
"On any other occasion do you know
Mckenzie to have been intermediary of
Judge Noyes?" asked Pfllsbury
Mclaughlin fnterposed with an objec-
ton that Hume be forced to state moth
ing but facts and not be allowed to black
en- the character of men in this ruthless
fashion. The question was answered in
this fashion:
1 don't remember Of any distinct date or
conversation where Judge Noyes had informed
me that Mckenzie was the intermediary
had interviews by direction of Mckenzie. He
informed that he had seen Judge Noyes
and the latter wanted to see me. These oc-
cured frequently in relation to Anvil Creek
litigation on which Mckenzie was appointed
receiver.
WAS the stock of the Alaska Gold Min
ing Company promised you ever given
you?"
Il have never received or seen any evil
There was something said about the
receivership of Mrs. Requa VS.. Linder-
berg. and Jacobs VS.. Brensen cases being
there not?" asked Pillsbury, following the
same line. The witness answered.:
Interests for Mckenzie.
In the case of the Leo and Libre Mining
Company VS.. Alaska Gold and Exploration
Company, Swanson and Jensen. intervenors
appointed, and as soon as Mckenzie obtained
an interest he saw to the appointment of a
receiver. / was told that IL 1 named the re-
ceiver he would be appointed.
did Mckenzie get the interest prom
ised?"
Mclaughlin fairly sizzled over this oues-
ton. and provoked the following from
Pillsbury:
obtained an interest and for that reason
promised an order of the court.
ITO whom are you arguing this matter,
Mr.. Pillsbury2" said Heney,, looking at
the reporters. The former smiled serenely
and forced the question.
The witness replied that Mckenzie
would have done just such a thing. In
fact he thought he did it on more than
ended.
McLaughlin's first question was:
In that case In which you were attor-
ney for the intervenor did you think it
was proper case for the appointment of
a receiver"
Yes" answered Hume
Who was appointed?"
Denny Brogan."
How about the other casesT'
The responses of the witness were the
same.
The cross-Questions about the stock
brought out a, reply from the witness that
he believed there was such stock of the
Alaska Gold Mining and Exploration Com
pany.
Hume and Noyes had a tilt in court
over litigation, and the following testi-
mony of the witness is to the point:
In the courtroom, in the presence of many
people, Judge Noyes on the bench unnecessarily
rebuked me in manner that brought the at
tention of all to me. 1 informed that the
case in question could not be tried unless we
agreed to the receivership. desired to have
these cases tried at once and asked the court
for 1t orally. He told me 1 ought to have
better sense than to ask for it orally, that L
should file my claim and have it put on the
docket. That was the rebuke and what 1 told
Mckenzie when l met him later. This was
after court opened, about the end of Sep
tember, 1900
The Blake -Hadelein case was threshed
over again. This was the litigation over
a grub stake, and Hume was at first the
attorney of record, but later was succeed
ed by Attorney H. A Bruner. A demur-
rer to the complaint was overruled in
Humes time, but a demurrer to an
amended complaint, in which Bruner fig