The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1881-07-31
DAILY INfRLLIGENCER
J sunday. July 81. 1851.
IMPoRTANT SUIT DECIEDED.

- S@s8S WY OAs 1901
IMPORTANT SUIT DECIDED.
The suit Of Cochran & Day against
Crawford & Harrington was decided
yesterday by w II White. Referee.
Over 900 pages Of testimony were taken
and about thirty witnesses examined.
The case has been opcs tri<d in the
District Court. where it occupied the
CRATER part Of three days. but was not
submitted 10 the jury, . motion being
made by the defendants for non.suit,
on the ground that the action was not
properly brought The PLAINTIFF then
dismissed the suit and brought this
action. The defendants plead an equit.
sbis counter claiu and the ease was
referred 10 Mr. White 90 referee to de.
eide. The principal controversy was
about two boons of saw logs. sold by
the dsfendants % SCENTS of the plain
tifts, 10 the Port Madison Mill Com
pany. The mill company retained the
scale Of the logs at 47s.ss1 feet. worth
s2i54s7. The plaintiffs claimed there
were coo. 900 feet Of logs. worth $500.
and that the defendants bad, By negii.
gsnce. lost this sam in disposing of the
logs. The Referee found that the quanti.
ty Of logs in the two booms was $50, 600
feet, ressooable worth $3627. On o
settlement of the accounts between the
plaintiffs and defendants. the Referee
found . balance das che plaintiffs Of
e2020.65. Msssrs u Hall and Burke
& Rssin represented tbe plalntifis. and
struve, Haines q Lsary the defendants.
We submit the opinion Of the Referee,
which more fally explains the case:
OPINION. seft5
In deciding . case of this kind, .
referee has double duty to perform
that OF Q judge aud that Of d jury.
@o1s A. SAoSk ~ 4SSS&tuh1C ZIG mAb.
tiers in controversy he mast bring to
bear not only his lsgsi knowledge. but
bis common sense and every day ex.
pefiencs. This case has been warmly
contested, and IL u right that the par
ties 20 IL should know the reasons
which have induced nae TO make The
findings of Law and fact which I have
made. .e.as.l ,c.0a
II appears from the evidence that
about the 7th dan Inps, j $50, the plain
tbs had something over o million feet
OF sawlogs for sale; that ON . portions
Of these logs the defendants, who were
merchants carrying on d largo bust.
ness IN seattle, held mortgage tor
somsthing over one thousand dollars;
that about June 7th, 1880, the plaintiffs,
who were loggers by occupation, made
Q contract to construct trail on the
Sksgit River, one hundred miles or
over from Seattle. and that both the
PLAINTIFF went MP there about that
time to do that work; that ct the time
they Gent to construct this trail they
gave written authority to the defen.
danss, suthcrixing them to sell and dis
pose Of the aforesaid logs OF che plain
tifs on socount Of the plaintiffs. At
the time such authority was given, the
plaintiffs were largely indebted to the
defendants. Their avAilabls property
was In thess sswlogs; their principal
creditors were authorized TO sell them,
presumably to pay the indebtedness
due them. at least they had o large
amount Of the property Of the plain.
tifs. placed in their haads by their
debtors for sale. and II sale was made
they would hold . sufficient amount 10
their hands to discharge the pisintiffS
indebtedness to them. The evidence
shows that nothing wss said about
oompensating the defendants for Their
trouble In making . sale. bat it 10 APP
parent that . sale would have benefited
them inas1nach &c thereby they would
have obtainsdH funds to pay the in.
debtsdness Of the plaintiffs owing to
them. Now. what was ths duty of
the defendants, touching the disposal
OF these logs? The q evidences shows
that they rsrsshsesd husinsss men,
dong . large mercantile busisSss. In
order 10 know. what they versl DOING
Vhen they undertook 10 sell loce. oom.
mon sense teaches N that ,thev shouId
have known the character end DUALITY
Of the commodity they hsd for s.is