The record-union., 1892-10-27
HE'D ADJOURN COURT.
Justice Starr Said He Was Willing
to Take Some Abuse.
A Little Incident in a Complicated
Law Suit-Barnett Had to
'sPungle.''

A rather complicated yet interesting
suit was brought to a conclusion in
Justice Starts court yesterday.
Some time ago, it appears, the fruit
growers of Shasta County formed an asso-
citation for the purpose of pulling to-
gether" and getting the best prices they
could for their fruit. Several commits
sion houses wanted to handle the fruit,
among them the Barnett Randolph Fruit
Company of Chicago. Charles O. Bar
nett, the local agent of the Chicago house,
entered into an arrangement with J. p.
Hawkins, an enterprising young man of
Shasta, whereby Hawkins was to win the
northern growers over to the. house Bar
nett represented. Hawkins accomplished
it after considerable trouble.
Then came hitch. Hawkins wanted
500 for his trouble. As he had already
received $50 from Barnett, he was salts
fed with $50 more. But Barnett claimed
that Hawkins was only entitled to SIS,
and then they fell out.
hawkins brought suit before Justice
Starr for S299 and costs. The case was
partly heard Tuesday and concluded yes
terday. Hawkins, who was represented
by w. H. Devlin, told his story and Bar
N.
Strong Company said Hawkins services
were worth $500. Justice Starr, however,
after hearing all the testimony, gave
Judgment for $50 and costs.
The usual execution was then issued,
but it was returned nsatisfied-Barnett
dld not 'pungle." On the understanding
that the Barnett-Randolph Company mad
money on deposit, several hundred dol
lars in the ID. 0. Mills Bank, an execu-
ton was served there, but the bank Off
cials stated that while Barnett had money
on deposit there in his own name there
was none in the name of the corporation.
This all happened on Tuesday.
When the matter was reported to Judge
starr the latter determined to investigate
so he ordered all hands to appear before
him again yesterday, and also summoned
Cashier Frank Miller of the bank Mr.
Miller took the stand and testified that
while Barnett was the depositor il was
generally known that he was the man
aging agent and Treasurer of the Barnett
Randolph Company of Chicago. He also
testified that since the execution had
been served on the bank Barnett had
drawn his money out.
Barnett and his attorney, Albert john
son, endeavOred to show that the money
on deposit belonged to Barnett Brothers
OF Chicago, of which firm the defendant
was member, but he admitted on the
stand that this firm was simply an agent
lori the Barnettt-RandOlph Company.
BESIDES, he said, he Barnett Randolph
Company owed him money for salary,
d and even if the amount that was on de-
pOsit belonged to the corporation he had
a right to hold it.
But Justice Starr declared that it was
very clear to him that the money be-
lOnged to the Barnett Randolph Com
pIny, although it was deposited in its
agents name. He therefore reiterated
his former order that Barnett pay over
the money. As Barnett said he had it in
his pocket at the time, the Judge COM
lnanded him to pay Immediately. Bar
nett did so, but at his attorneys request
2 stay OF proceedings was granted for ten
days, TO give them a chance to appeal
should they so desire. Meantime, how
ever, the court holds the coin.
Both Barnett and his attorney were
considerably worked up over the per-
emptory manner in which the Justice
made the order, and when the case was
over Mr.. johnson asked rather signti-
cantly If court was adjourned.
He was informed that it was not. as an
other case was about to come up, DO
you want to abuse the court?'' asked
Justice Starr. "lf you do, will adjourn
1or your benefit
NO." replied Mr.. johnson, ironically.
~ only wanted to tell the court, in a gen
.tlemanly way, what L thought of its de-
icision."
subsequently, however, the Justice and
attorney met and shook hands, agreeing
to forget and forgive