Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1893-12-13

| nays Uoeu COul plcGcu ht COsG VI ~Coo.
$50, 900 and within four months time.
Two years later it had cost nearly 5000,
900 and was not yet completed. In
January, 1892, we adjusted our trou bles
by a supplemental agreement, based
upon an estimate OF their engineer,
that SIS 1000 over and above the SIS, 900
would complete the dam. This SIS, 900
was to be spent after the spring freshets.
Immediately after signing this agree
ment, bills were presented for my ap-
proval that aggregated nearly $4,000
over the $4,000, and thereafter they
claimed these accounts, as including
the $4,000 that they had agreed to ex-
pend after the spring freshets. Our ap-
proval to nearly 10000 of accounts was
thus obtained by fraud.
"For the above violations of their
contracts we annulled ali their water
rights and published notice to that
effect to the public. In February OF
1892, we concluded a contract for the
construction of our present canal, and
later allowed it to be assigned to the
Arizona Construction company at their
request. Under this contract there was
provision for the joint appointment OF
an engineer upon whose estimates and
measurements all work was to be paid.
The salary and expenses of the engineer
to be paid by the contractor. The Ari-
IONA Construction company refused to
accept the first estimate of work made
by this engineer, and also refused to
pay the engineers salary and expenses,
unless the estimates were changed as
demanded by them, their claim being
that they were entitled to pay twice for
the same material, first in the excava-
ton and second in the EN- bankment.
For instance, for excavatlng rock the
contract pric9 was two dollars, in addl-
ton they claimed two dollars more for
| the same rock in the embankment,
making four dollars for each yard of
rock. There were no specifications for
any embankment, but they claimed pay
all the same. The engineer, to get his
pay, finally changed his estimates as de-
manded by them, and thus forced US to
bring restraining suit.
'After the completion of the canal
they brought a suit to foreclose under
their mortgage, but upon our filing a
of accounts, books, maps, etc., they at
once dismissed this suit. Later they
advertised our property under their
deeds of trust, and we were again forced
to bring suit to restrain this, and we
did obtain an injunction. Pending this
suit and in settlement of all our past
difficulties, we entered the June 16,
| 1898, agreement.
''By this agreement the Arizona Con-
struction company was to make yer
ifisd statement from their books of all
money expended by them or for which
they were responsible, and this state
ment, when so made, was to be the full
amount of our liabilities to them. and
for which notes, payable in two years,
were to be taken in payment by the
Arizona Construction company. We
were to, and did, place the title to our
property in the Peoria Canal company,
being new company organized by the
stockholders of the Arizona Construc-
ton comaany. and for the purpose of
two.year notes to the Arizona Construc-
selves) and to take care of the property.
(including remodeling of the dam, go
that it would pass inspection by parties
having money to loan) by the sale of
water rights and mortgage bonds, and
also by the sale of water rights and
bonds to pay off our debt, (the two
years notes. and return the property to
us, if this debt was paid off within the
two years, either by money so obtained
or by US in any other manner.
This new company was also to issue
to our company 5000 acres of preferred
water rights, and $4,000 of first mort
gage bonds or the proceeds thereof, and
were to place its entire capital stock in
escrow, subject to our order, if the two
years notes were paid off as above
stated. This June l6 agreement was
hardly signed before they prepared a
deed of trust, contrary to the terms of
contract, and covering all our property,
(held by them in trust) and sent the
deed to be recorded, intending thereby
to deprive US of our rights and property.
Fortunately we learned of their inten-
tions and recorded our agreement.
Upon hearing this, they telegraphed
and stopped their deed of trust being
recorded. After waiting several months
and without their having complied with
single one of the acts required OF
them, and especially because they were
attempting to issue other mortgage
bonds different from those named in the
agreement, and which if issued would
have prevented US from ever being able
to redeem our property, and also be-
cause they were proposing to issue wa
ter rights different from those named in
the agreement, and that if issued would
have fraudulently placed an additional
Indebtedness of $4,000 on our prop
erly, we were the third time forced to
bring suit.
'These are the facts leading up to the
present suit. The present condition OF
the suit is that the testimony is all in
and that within a few days the final ar
gument will be heard and decree rem
dered on the merits of the case. Pend
ing this, but subjest to the final decree,
a receiver has been appointed BY the
court. 1t is admitted by them in the
evidence that they have not complied
with single one of the requirements
and obligations of the June 16 agree
ment, and also that they have attempt,
ed to issue the bonds and water rights
above objected to. The evidence shows
that the Peoria Canal company is an
entirely solvent company, having not
only the entire property of our COM
pany upon which to raise money, but in
addition to that, they have So, 600, OOO
of stock, fully subscribed for, and not