The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-11-08

totWAIuS1 6Vuub ldIlHeFb VINO klny
nothing about buying feed or woFkInI
oxen on hard road, and who neye
made any estimates, say that 500
year will keep yoke OF oxen. Thos
Of greatest experience with oxen, Cd
pecially on hard roads, and who bRy
figured the cost OF feed talk very differ
emily. They say buBhsl v day n raj
feed with a. much hay as the oxen vii
keRt. Say the oxen are fed grain onl,
when ut work and are ut work oni;
half the time or $50 days year lhei
corn at 90 cents q bpshel will cost SO
q year. Their hay at $40 per ton vii
cost Sl00,-in all 1902, The estimate
have made are In every respect low
lower than those indicated by I'M
weight OF testimony, even In case
where oxen. have pasture, The oxeI
and horses ara fed out OF The same orll
and NOV, We are told that the feet
for oxen and horses should be kept II
separate places. What security woult
that be against careleRsn0as or fraud
It would be inst az easy 70 feed thI
horses on the grain bought for the oxei
as 70 feed all on grain bought for all
Mr.. Ferrel has shown you ihe tliflloul
~, yes, the IDpussibillty Of keepInt
the feed separate, or OF dividing thl
cost OF the feed IN shy other way thar
he has done. rtths oxen are from any
cause breAchy and troublesome L
neighborE, the sale Of the oxen Woult
ben little better way Of getting rid o
the trouble than the removal or a goot
and efficient superintendent, II Indeed
the oxen can be fairly sold, AFTER ID,
exaggerated statements OF their weak,
ness In good works aud sIrength 10 bad
ones which have been pnbilshed, and
after the brutal treatment recelvpd
from Doyle aud Armstrong,
Ills doubtful whether Mr.. Lunslord'l
plan OF paying four dollars q day fol
ox-teAms would save any money 10 The
road, though very likely II would bt
quite satisfactory to soms on the line o.
the ro5d. who have teams for hire,
as 10 The O0ntrdctS Although the
proof negatives every allegation made
agalnBt Mr.. FeFrel, under this head,
am not unwilling 10 devote a little time
70 the discussion Of the subject, rs 80
much was said about 1t before and lar.
Ing the testimony, and the prosecution
perslat in charging In argument against
Mr.. Ferrci that which the sworn wit.
nesses on each side have shown 10 be-
without foundation. Losing light oil
the true question, whether Mr., Fer.
rel should be removed or not, they
read 10 you nov Tor the third Time
law upon an entirely different q uestion.
What Is decided by tho authorities
clted for the complAinants Is that q
bargain made by an, agent with his
principal Is without any obligation ID
bind his principal" but "the principal
has on election to adopt the act OF the
principal or not" Story on Agency,
Z 2l0. "IfRn agent authorized 10 bny
should buy Of himself, and the bar
gain be advantageous 10 tue principal,
the latter has the eleCtlon 20 rAtily It or
not; II disahvan.ageotls he may affirm
II or repudlate Il, at his pleasure" $40.
ry on Agency. 3 2l4. "Au agent un.
dartaklug the transaction Of business,
cannot nu the subject OF that business
act for his own benefit 10 the injury Of
his principal" fuckers Com, 80.
lit had been proved that Mr., Fer.
rel had In substance, though In the
name OF another, taken Il Contract let
by himself as superintendent Of the
road, and II the question before you
were whe.her the Board OF Public
Works IL bound by that contract or
may dlsaffirm It, then the law read to
you might be applicable. On any other
point II has no bearing. And further,
the facts alleged HgItnst Mr.. FerreI, ad j.
hitting for the moment their truth,
bear n0sort OF Resemblance to those on
which the decisions cited are based,
Would the Court In either OF tho cases
cited have decided 'Hs It did, had 1t Ap,
peared that the sale by the agent had
been bona fde made 10 another person,
the agent having no Interest In the
purchase then, aud that sometime
afterwards the agent In like good faith
had bought part OF the property ut a
fair price from the purchaser NJ the
former sale? such n state Of facts
would be something like that charged
here. The law In such n Case may 10
found In the case Of Ksarney o.. T.Y-
lur, 10 Howard, 522. In that case Il
was even shown that perhaps the agent
contemplated n future Interest In the
purchase, and the Court says (page 524)
"In the absence OF actual fraud, aud
with the admitted fact that the proper.
ty WAS sold not only for N full, but Tor
n very large price, wa
think IL would DO pressing tho princl.
pie Of constructive fraud to N rellue.
meut Ia Its practical application, Us>
You'd the reason OF II, w II certainly
would be In utter subversion OF the jus.
tice 10 lhe particular case, to cUucede 10
II the effect claimed"
III u man sells US agent the moment
the sails Is completed he IL juncLIS
oDici0." ! fuckers Com. %.
liz had been clearly shown TO the
Board that Mr.. Fsrrel WAS guilty AZ
charged, the question would remain
whether Hervey's contract for sectious
l and 2 should stand. iervey took
theselsectlons at 81 ,57H a perch, where
as Mr.. Lnnsford paid on tue same ssc.
lions 81. IS per perch, Hervey tells you
he can't make anything al 1t, and would
willingly get rid oiit, but 1 don't think
the Board Will let him of.
Suppose Fsrrel did haul stone this
year for Hervey. All the superiuleud
ents within his recollection have hAu led
for contractors. as has been proved,
Mr.. LunSford says he didn't do II, but
that his son did, and he and his son do
business on shares-thaL's the only way
his testimony can be reasonably under
stood. Everybody else thought Mr.,
Lunsford hanled. Mr, Thomas Horn.
brook and Mr.. Springer say they ad :
vIsed Mr.. Ferrel 1t was ali right for
him TO haul. Mr.. Ferrel might we'll
rely on the practices Of other gu perln<
tendents AZ 10 hauling, practices con
ttnued for many years, and perfectly
we'll known, to show that II he had
hauled he had been guilty OF no inteu.
tional wrong. II he shows that
In so doing he acted honestly
that former superintendent had i'm.
derstood the matter as he himself had,
and that the practice had long been
known to the community and 10 the
immediate representatives OF the State,
and had never been In any way object
ed to by either, he rebuts the accusa-
ton Of guilt. A superintendent can
afford TO haul better than any one else,
just as" a contractor can afford 70 do a
days work on the road better than
any one else, because In each case the
business Of the man calls him to the
place but does not occupy his whole
time. The superintendent can see after
his teams when the road does not need
his entire. attention and the contractor,
after he gets enough stone out TO sup
ply hIs breakers, can work on the road.
Bot to determine the question before
you, none OF these supposItlons are
necessary. The evidence Is positive