Arizona citizen., 1874-01-31

that Linn being one or tne uelenUdnIS could not give evidence to contradict his own deed Linn answered said question under objection as follows: expected " to receive from French all the mOneyhe " received for the claim. l relied on my previous knowledge of him that he would act fairly with me. If he did not " was the loser" French too on his eX- animation as a witness says: q expected " to pay Linn all should get for the claim" Linn on his examination also said "I now owe French about 5000. Most
 Ofthis indebtedness has been made since "my return from Nevada" This seems to be all the evidence of Linn'S purpose in making the deed. Of the relations of the defendants, Linn says: French and
 "came to Arizona in 1866. There had
 "been @ partnership between us in Mon--
 "tana in ISG5, and it has always continued
 :" so. In the Spring of 1869, l went Co
 "White Pine, French furnishing me
 "means to go with. l told hlm on 1,I3 IeaV-
 ting that if l found anything at White
 "Pine, I would locate for him, and i: he
 found anything here, he should give me
 " a show. On or about June 2l, 1871, re-
 "turned to Prescott. l Staid four days and
 "then went to Bradshaw. On the morn
 ting of June 2S, 1871, l arrived at Brad
 "shaw." On cross examination Linn
 saws: q have never been engaged in any
 "business in partnership with French. 1
 "never owned @ mining claim in com
 "pany with him. What mean by mu-
 
 "brOke and the other is not, the one who
 " has money shares with the other. French
 "dOes not now own any portion or the
 "prOperty in question. He holds one-haI
 "Of the ground as security for what owe owe
 "him." French on this subject says: 'ln
 '' the Spring of 1869, Linn went from Pres
 " colt to White Pine. It was understood
 " between us that l was to be interested in
 "anything he found, and if found any
 "thing here, I would give him show; or
 | Crpt hi
 Hwould do it." The statement of the tran
 script also contains copies of two letters,
 also a copy of deed and power of attorney from Linn to French, The first or these
 letters is dated Prescott, A. T., January F.
 1871, and is addressed by French to Linn at Gold Hill, Nevada, and states that
 French had located a claim for Linn and
 promised to send him some ere: Plaln- tiffS objected to this letter and the obJec- ton was oVerruleG. The second of these letters is between the same parties and from and tO the same place, dated Jan uary 2, 1871. The letter seemed to have contained blank deed and it also ap- pears that Linn eXecuted and returned the deed and power of attorney With lIttle II any delay. On the 2Tth Of June, French executed his deed to Linn for one unClvld- ed half Of the property. The cOnsldera- ton of the whole of said property rom Linn to French being SlUUO, and the con SideratiOn Of One-half decided back by French to Linn being $500. \ witness named ThOrne was called by the plmn- | tiifS and offered to prove that at tne time 1 NOreland located the ground for Linn, he : located two claims for witness and CaSSl- dy, with the understanding that said ThOrne and Cassidy were to deed One-naI1 1 of said location 10 the Tiger Company or | which MOrcland was member without | further consideration; and agreeable 10 1 said understanding, did deed One-hali of | said ground to the Tiger Company. This | evidence was offered to show that Sllnl- 1 lar understanding existed at the time with l Linn Objected tO and the objection was | sustained and the plaintiffs excepted.
 1 From the evidence ofThOne thus stated, | the court is asked to find fraud in the To- | cation of the claim of Linn by M0reiand | and French. The credibility of this state | ment is seriously impaired by the fact that 1 the man YhOrne who makes II was hlnl- 1 self particeps fraudis by his own comics sion: but even if true, 1t does not tend to l show fraud in Linn, and it was rightly re- 1 jected. Linn seems to have done all III l his power diligently to assert hlS own right and perfect his claim. True, ne seems to have been chiefly employed Tn | defending himself since the institution 01 1 this suit. On July IS, 1872, Linn however appears to have done it like man wao i believed himself right and laDorlng to de | fend his own property. After the noSU | careful consideration, neither contradlc- 1 tiOn of the deed from Linn to trenCh nor | fraudulent intent in the defendants, IS dis 1 covered in this testimony. It is true ln
 law that a deed cannot be directly contra | dicted by parol testimony. It is always
 susceptible of the fullest oral explanation i for the prevention of fraud and the con ! summation of justice. 1t frequently nap pens that the real or whole intention IS 1 not mentioned or described in deed and | it must be shown by other testimony II
 ever called in question. What possible l contradiction or evidence appeared Tn ] Linn'S deed, which mentions the cOnSld- 1 eration of 5000, is there in the fact that | Linn owed French money at the tlmei de- f sired and thus enabled French to sell the 1 property, expected French to pay hIm the l purchase money or credit him with It; or | in the fact that French expected to do all ! this as he says he did in good faith? These ! facts and intentions may all stand on a ! solid foundation of truth together. The 1 power of attorney is no contradiction or 1 the deed or anything else. It was another | familiar way of enabling French to sell | the property for Linn'S benefit. It proves | the real intention of the deed and not ln | contradiction of it. So too the deed rom 1 French to Linn for only an undivided l half of the property, is evidence of the de- | feasible character of Linn'S deed to French and may be remote evidence Of Llnn'S ln- ! debtedness to French for which the other half remaining in him is alleged to be collateral security. If French shall deny i that Iinn's deed was but defeasible deed or Linn deny that he owes the, debt for which French retained the undivided ln- terest of half the claim as a security, then the fraud will perhaps begin to have eX- | istence. At present, none is apparent. With these conclusions the highest judi cial authorities fully accord. A careful
 examination of the case discloses no eva, [ I.1r <gNra