, 1879-05-11
DR.. A. S. BROOKS.
Substantially Decision in His
Favor.
The Suit by That Hot Springs Drug
gist-Testimony in the Case.
The Jury Stand Eleven to one
for the Doctor.

Last year druggist at Hot Springs, Ark, by
the name Of Passmore brought sutt against: Ds.
Aimop ), Brooks, . we'll known physician OF luis
CITY, charging him with breach Of contract III re-
1ation to the sale by Brooks to Passnaose OF tne
drugstore at Hot Springs, which the former tos-
merly owned. The case came up for trial last week.
and came to an end yesterday in pecunas us
agreement Of the jury The undi7puted: tacts III
the case, as brought ont by the testimony. were
that DR.. Brooks sold to Passmore hia drug store
for 81, 300, S1.e2o being for the. drugs a.
their invoice price. and the rcuaatnder ior
the goodwill. Passmozc, however, the
only witness in ILLS own behaf, swore that the co1s-
ttact which he made with DR.. Brooks was that lid
was to pay him down for the drugs at their invoice
price. and to pay the remainder Of the money In
one md TWO years. Dr.. Brooks, who was then
resident Of the Hot Springs, and very prominent
physician there. contracting, his side, to remain
at the Springs during his 1ife and give to Pasa-
morc's store all his prescriptions.
DR.. BROOKS, HOWEVER.
swose that the contract, which verbal one.
| YVES that he was to receive 100 cents on every
dollar OF his prescriptions which Passmore put up.
until the drugs were all paid for and then IS
cents On each dollar until the remainder Of the
SUM, which represented the goodwill, was paid
! for conditioned, however, that payments were to
| be stopped in case DR.. Brooks to die or to
leave the Hot Springs. This testimony was
corrobors:cd by that OF q man by the name Of
Clark, whom Passmorc had promised to tase into
| partnership with linn but did not. clark testified
| TINT passmore had stated to him the terms Of the
contract just a. Dr. Brooks stated shen. md h.1
| also added that he had got rid OF paying good
denl OF the money because BROOKS had left the Hot
| Springs On some incidental points. also, PASS
| more was conrrAdictcd. the testimony showing
that, nstead Of being poor, as be rep1eseuted and
| the business being an unprodtanle one, he Was
really running two iourtshing drug stores at los
| Springs. 1t was also proven that Dr.. BROOKS had
enoken to various persons OF his intention Of re-
/ moving to Chicago. .... ...
This vas tho status OF the restimony.-two Wit
| messed on one side and one on the other. The
Judge. in his instructions. which were sisaf ana M
positive, owing to The strong pseponaetanee oi the
| TUE JURY
went out at half past o'clock Friday afternoon
when they Hrst counted noses it was discovered
tLat six OF them we're IN favor Ut
fas not ds1enqsat 1a fa9oz 9' oi the pa|nta WITH
perhaps one exception, but had gottcn the notion
their beads that the sos ought 70 o. a,yiaeb
cannot Be legally done. They came into court
once and asked FOR further Instructions, hut did
| not specify closely enough what particular point
thew were in doubt about, and the Judge said that
the Instructions he had given were clear enough,
there Goud be no a. @ 70 Inc nn
ea 's1@t's aaa 50 they fesgss i out ali a!.sS-
Duriog this long struggle OF twenty hours. with
oux supper and without breakfast, two of the sic
| Gch
defendant S weakened. aud sided with the six WHO
we're in favor Of splitting the COSTS So that when
the Jury came In they stood apparently eight to rouf
although, the facts In the cass show but one OF
them 1t the most was In favur OF tae plaintiff
At TH1s TINE QUITE AN EXCITEMENT WAS oc-
| CAslONED
by the fling by the attorneys for the defendant
Ncsars. Washburne 4 Robbins and C.. 8. GREGORY.
uf an affidavit relative to ono OF the jurors by the
| name OF j. H. Kennedy. This affidavit WAS to tue
effect that one day during the ria when the Court
ntbeqs kspt bact from, them and walked down La
sale street behind the plaintiff and his attorneys No
gradually quickene hts pace until he game abreast
Of inse ihss9sst in sfassnaat tsa matter w'G "a
was constantly in the courtroom, ndhced al this
aud q si a % aa sdon III ss
parently noticed this gentleman. whom ne nnu .'1
seen in the courtroom, and. abruptly leaving tue
ts the stairway W lesdiag to Hankins gaming house.
The watcher stepped into another stairway anu
watched deveopmens n aoort shfee t m mha,es R.e
Wort VOC nousc, a ~ which he entered. The Offices
Of tho plaintiffs counsel arc in a., onild, Id
fag Egcbange Mes alley, which Gun be reached BY going
Alter his Affidavit had been submitted 70 + ths
Court the Juror himself and the attorneys ZOE tut
r DENIED EMPHAT1CALLY
that there had been anything wrong In the matter
Pluintif1s counsel, McssEs. Bates and Bliss. and
the poluti himself said that they had not noticed
I the man and had not exchanged word with him.
and the gentleman who had made the othdaV1t wsa
upable to sav that there had been any conversa-
ton The juror said that he had gone M 10
| Haukius' for the purpose OF getting some money
which he had lost there ut gambling. and fhat then
he had gone into the BrevoGrt House Tor the pnr'
nose Of borrowing s. from the barkceper. In view
The high character of the attorneys for the pasnt
iff the Judge held that there was nothing which
| could implcatc them, and the affidavit was VILE
= . drawn. ...
. AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.
Then the Judge asked those jurors who we're no.
in fayor Of returning verdict for the plaintiff t
! stand no, and they all did so excep
i Kennedy. Two other Jurors stated tha
. fney had watched the man. first haVinl
nnt,ced things which they thought were ausps
It cious, but they however knew nothing wrong
Their attention had been chiefly attracted to th
fact that he kept apart from the other jurors ant
seemed distnclncd to stay with theua
So the Jury were DISCHARGED. und the case ~ !
, | an end unless the plaintiff which fs unitkclr
since It was clear case OF eleven agatEst him Il
one in favor Of him, chooses to try It over again
The testimony produced, the instructions Of til
| Judge and the pretty near unanimous opinion =
the iury all sustain Dr.. Brooks side or the case
e | nbont the correctness Of which none who knes
II him ever had any question.
THE INDIAN TERRITORY.
j. AZ already predicted by TuE TE1ncSE, The scar
about white settlement In the Indian Territory hs
I Af-,,% f.r%~n nHn$f thFc