The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-04-18

A Fishing Match Makes r., al fol
Inwrer2

10 6lGI8+
4 suit that 10 all appearances Is brought
more In test than ia earnest was died In
Justice Mllier's court last evening.
G. w. Ganey and E. r. Blaine appear as
plaintiffs and W. l. Russell aud D. A. Nc
kenzie as co-defcudants- 4. II. J. Penny
father and ]. Boyd Taiiman ere attorneys
for the plaintiff and as cause for action
complain of the defendants as follows
That on or shout june so. 1855. the said
day being seculsr day OF that month, the
sasd plaintiffs. together with Vance Ii
Faoer, Charles Fraseh, X. n. Meinssrs aud
John Doe, were lawfully engaged IN the
peaceful occupation OF catching fish 81 tne
t0wn OF Redmond, ia King county. and to
stimulate the said personAfn their said
employment aud 40 benefit the general
public by placing la the market iounti.
iui supply of fresh bronk tront-tbs mar
kets as To brock trout being a. said date In
depleted condiuou-the following
arrangement Was thea aud there entered
into. 20 wit. Each of said persons wss 10
place ia the hands OF the said Vance II
Faber the SUM OF 81, the aggregate amount
OF said sums 60 be paid 10 the person OF said
persons who during the said day should
catch. by hook and liss. the largest nun.
Der Of brook tfotlt, snd that said defendant.
u. A. Mckenzie. was "a act as Judge In all
disputes between said persons; that each
OF said persons placed In the hands Of
Vance II. Faher the sam of 81. which. to
Fefner with the amount 60 be contributed
by sad Vance IL. Faher, aggregated the
That az the close Of the dey, ON the re-
turn OF said persons from the work OF
catching hsh. the said plaintiff. a. +.
Risiae. placed before the said judge nine
brook trout, the days catch of the said
plaintiff, asad The said defendant, w L.
Russell. placed before the said judge time
fish. said defendants catch, all which sxh
OF said defendant Russell. said Judge then
and there declared 10 be brock trout. aud
each ef The rest Of said persons placing be-
fore the judge less number Of brook
trout said judge awarded to said plaintiff.
i. +. blaine, uut OF the moneys placed in
tie hands Of the said Vance III. Fabrr the
sum az 81. and a like sum oct of said
moneys was awarded by said ledge co said
defendant Russell. which said sums were
afterward paid BY said Vance II. Fahen 10
said platntif y. +. blaine and said defend
ant Russell.
THAT GA the tlEst iay Of gaiy. fSss, the
plaintiffs learned for the first time that una
os TIE said nine fishes placed before said
Judge as defendant Kassel's catch Tor xaist
day was NOT a brook trout, but wss In fact
a ehhh, species az 8Sh sa Tar like in re-
sesnblancc 10 brock trout thai only the
most skillinl piseatnsy can distinguish be-
tween said species OF Eish.
That defendants were az the ;inae az The
decision os said Judge wholly unaware
that one of said nine fishes Of defendant
Russell, was q ehuh. that said judge. 81 the
time OF said decision. well knew that one
OF said niue fishes. the catch Of said de-
fcndanf Russell WIS = ehGh that in col
fusion with said defendant RwsSel. and In
fraud of The rights OF said plaintiffs. aud
for the sum of one-haif the money 10 be
received by said defendant Rnsses. which
was ~ 40 ia said judge ia payment Of HIS
said decision, said judge made said de-
cssian
That the said plaintiff, Ysney, being de-
ncfeBt In the art OF angling, aud the said
uiasatin, 2 T. Blaine. being without the
necessary money "a psy oac dollar sato the
hands Of said Vance IL Faher as aforesaid
aud IS a condition OF lean of 81 by said
asuey 70 said Blaine. said PLAINTIFF ncolcd
Their issues in said ia3neys with the an.
Outstanding thas enc half 81 Tie rioaeys
mat might 90 won by either Should be TIE
property OF the other
That by reason az the premises afoss.
said plainsisle have Suffered damage IN the
slim OF 81, 30 part 81 which has hsea paid.
etc; thar the said defendant, knsseI. 20
make fruitleSS any judgment that might
% rendered against Aim IN this action. has
suddenly departed the geFyitory ef MASH
lsKiea. sud any other shaa joint tusig.
ment against said defendants utl9 10
worthless 20 said plaintiffs
Wherefore. plaintiffs pray fer losat and
several judgment be entered against said
letepGsnts Tor she skn af s. aud assngnevs
.se of sic. Together with plsiafiss' eosts in
While the suit on Is face Is aoshlas
mon than practical joke or an sfsars 81
ne plaintiffs "a ssrn the tshies cn The de-
PENDANTS Tor an old Joke, lively trial viii
ista1SAlg reSclt fn the Justice : court and
NE eASc may cost the defeated p8rty many
0oilags In costs.