, 1892-02-22
FROM KING COUNTY
A CASE REVERSED AND A NEW
TRIAL Is ORDERED.
An Error Relative to the Admission
OF Testimony PrejudiciaI to the
Rights OF observation-disclosures from
the Town Of Ballard.


Rights Of Case from
the Town Of Ballard.
concluded from Saturday S issue.)
In Wiggin VS.. Day, 8 Gray 81, the evil
dence offered was, that the defendant at
he time he purchased the wagons of plain
tiff was insolvent, and at about the time of
the purchase he purchased a large amount
of personal property Of third parties, and
got them into his hands by fraud, and then
secreted them in numerous places. The
court sustained this testimony, but the se-
creting of the goods under the clrcum-
stances Of that case showed that the acts
charged were so connected as to make it
apparent that the defendant had common
purpose in all of the purchases, and that
he had formed a general scheme to cheat.
This was a Massachusetts case, decided
prior to Jordan vs.. Osgood supra, and was
noticed and distinguished by the opinion
in that case.
Castle VS.. Bullard, % Howard q. S. 172,
is case where firm of auctioneers, or
commission merchants, had obtained con
troll of the goods of the plaintiff, and sold
them to an irresponsible purchaser. 1t is
alleged in the complaint that the firm Of
auctioneers had consplred with the pur-
chaser to cheat and defraud the plaintiff.
1t appeared in the testimony that the de-
fendant had represented to plaintiff
that the purchaser was solvent,
when in fact he was insol-
vent. Evidence was also intro
duced tending to show that two or
more of the defendants had represented to
other persons about the same time that
the purchaser of the goods in question was
in good standing, and that they had like
wise assisted him inobtaining credit with
other dealers in merchandise. This testi-
mony was sustained by the supreme court
Of the United States, and while some of
the general statements made by the court
seem to bear out respondents contention,
yet when we consider the circumstances of
the case, and what was actually decided,
1t will not bear such a construction. The
testimony offered tended to show con-
spiracy and a we'll concerted scheme be-
tween defendant and the purchaser to
cheat and defraud the merchants of the
country, and under all the authorities such
a general scheme could be shown to prove
the intention Of the defendants in the tran
saction in question.
Butler VS.. Watkins, 13 Wallace Omitted
States) 456, was a case where the defendants
had contracted to manufacture and sell the
''Butler Cotton-tie," an invention on which
Butler had procured a patent, agreeing to
give Butler a share of proceeds Of sale. The
contract was never carried out by the de-
PENDANTS, and Butler sued Watkins, and
the 'Patent Nut and Bolt company" of
which Watkins was the agent. 1t seems
that the defendants were largely interested
- ViG s'Lo VI SIaG aIioo5 <9le
CIV yltosG gtl
and in bad faith from beginning to end;
that they entered into the negotiations
with the purpose of imposing upon him,
and keeping his tie out of the market for
ull' soool, an Wy ClI4U iilee.tn
liGlo lOetLlt !lio 9T1lG =! Un0 a1el
8g5et ~ - " 1sCAlia9 ~ = @
1lau ooliClol ~, oilG Ul1eeo py IoG9on " suGn t
g9llenL llls lle Mas ,ao SPY ouU @ ~ LLe
lIhGt uafl6 tH5 ysaI a9o9' allu !; Iar8ed
quanIlIy " Sne slo 4SieL Cles were
Gaelepy SOY - ~ peil9liS y
= lulN0 ~ 0Ale ooiAl PitShi1U
peIns pe4ofe Ohe JuIy' 1!le
tnt4 II ~ an g.IL
!9SVeLo UlIe ~
" ailoy' Nwno5 ~ M@S o"ld, nesu aIoo - -
velUeu e go - IL esliu
~ ~ 19o2 10 ai CiI t
~ 2teLa Y ~ NJ Z
ls:eU - s.es "
tlIlls ulLeGIoE ~ y eIle ~ nfa peon
~ y III ~
ait -
WIZ ~ ty q " aLioy
@ dol Vae pIPGse fi u slomfS w IL az
l eo tie oI,t 0l Oilf f ~ ~
tbe Y eea y, oTdar ~ adTapca tLoj
1, Nv a saa IF tbe BeerS 9Atia ta
~ eiI5 SaiG ~ ~,
,e+aatin L, a,,,,oT a,,d eolTrsa ~ +ha NJ
~ oo
~ +i II "
= gaioctod H. fo tr. cn15rt am1 t,a
H. ITSSitoS Ston ll0 LIZ
eoIo u III Pl7t t ei e
down = ~ bTno It also wt6in the fba
I9Io la5 dnTu 7orao We sond
ang sa 80 ith aii Az cases ctaa Ghsoon, rs a.
%5io,3fs Pl,tih +%a ooso'ot bar tba fro,3s
- - bn 1roe 5iS+io+
and indepsnGant tTansactinp bavino nc ~"
f,t bnarin dn tbe at issUa ai hat If IL
no1id sorro ~ ~ III tbo2, baIiax-a5
tat M Dere ~
@ f IT, AZ ~
i ~ UlG ei9o
w. ntad t AZ ia,'d t u ~
tbis ~ 5i+ fhe IorfI1 nairf;f NJ
th5t IA ohaat5 liz
M doos a lLlf
insf;fv tbe II faranca tbat ba has forr3,a5
cb aI - coat a.sS ~ tia
+ahi;sier Of tie fsct tbof bnS linJ
Vii nnt lIsfifv liz infarance that L. bas
fora9 onroI Scban1e ~ lie 10 n9
bIlai,Sss 1LicI IL ~
sncb tastimonT gara aGnoitted %ardiots
nI,id 5 @
~ nf tia m1tn b ~
es II te "a So oii - Oi10
Il held that evidenee tbat tlf dnfands'nt "a. +
has been guilty of other like frauds
is never admissible for the purpose
of showing his bad character and the