The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-31
TACoMA's SI,0OO,o 900 SCANDAL
Arguments i'm Progress-Case VIII Go
TO the Jury Tonight.

Tacoma, Dec. 30.-Special.-An the evil
dence in the million-doliar damage suit OF
the city against c. b. Wright having been
taken. arguments in the case were begun
today When court opened this morning
Judge D. j. Crowley. for the defense,
made a motion that the jury be instructed
to bring in a verdict for the company,
and Mr.. Wright. In an exhaustive argu-
ment. Judge Crowley made the contention
that the case should not he allowed to go
to the jury. He urged that no evidence
whatever had been introduced showing
that the defendant corporation or its Of
ficers had falsely represented the value of
the plant: that the city and its officials and
agents were given every opportunity 10
examine the plant, sources OF supply and
personal property, and that If the city
suffered from the failure of its agents 10
properly perform their duties, the COM
p1ny could not be held responsible. Judge
Crowley cited the employment by the city
of Engineer Rudolph Herring, who was
competent man, and full able to decide as
to the value Of the plants and capacity of
the Thomas and Patterson springs. With
regard TO the claim made that the city
was led to believe that Ii was getting SIC
acres of land when purchasing station A.
whereas it only got $40 acres Judge Crow
ley said that was simply a mistake; that
no false representations had been intended
and that the mistake was discovered be-
fore the deed of the plant was accepted
by the city council. and the council, with
fun knowledge of the mistake, accepted
the deed Fraud could not be alleged in
this transaction.
Replying for the city. Attorney Sheeks
cited numerous authorities TO support
plaintiffs claim of fraud. He said Herring
was not brought here to specially lnVes-
tigate the Thomas and Patterson springs,
but TO report on the entire proposition,
IL puI al 10
the proposition was made to sell the plant
TO the city at a vastly increased price
that the capacity of the springs became
material and ii was then that Sellers rep
resented their flow as 10000 600 gallons dai-
H. not as a matter of opinion. but an &C
tual fact. as George IL. Boardmah ana
other councilman has testified
Judge Galusha Parsons closed for the
defense citing a large number OF author
tiles He claimed that under the decis-
ions OF the supreme court II Ar. herring
had the opportunity 10 examine the
springs. and did not do SO. the company
could not he held responsible He urged
that in such a case where a municipal
corporation is plaintiff and private COM
pany is defendant, the fury might bring
in a verdict through suspicion or lmagln-
inss Of wrong and fraudulent represen-
tations.
CITY Attorney Wickersham made an able
argument on the evidence introduced by
his side, and the merits Of the case lie
touched upon the evidence OF Attorney
Harris A Corell. to the effect that he was
a member of the firm of Parsons X Corell
when the senior partner was employed
by the company in the water deal Judge
Wickersham charged that the company
expected Mr. Corell 10 work for the pur-
chase ordinance. and TO support the pro-
position TO buy the plants. The compa-
nv he argued. should b. held liable for
any representations its agents had made
before the question was submitted 10
vote of the people.
The court overruled the motion OF the
defense and the case viii 20 TO the jury.
Judge Pritchard expressed the dfhculty
ne had in deciding the complicated ques-
tons of law. and Of submitting II 20 the
Jury without error He said the question
was had tn. company secured the pay
ment of 81 80 0Q0. the purchase price nv
fraud2 II was largely matter Of intent.
If no fraud had been shown. the jury
should not bring in a verdict for the CITY
simply because the price had been 100
high In conclusion. the court sad there
would be five questions to oe considered
av the Jury First a 90 the quantity OF
land at station \ secCu nd as to the amount
of pipe third. as 70 the how OF Patterson
ana Thomas springs, fourth, as 10 repre-
sensations Of values. and lastly "a 10
whether members OF the council mad peen
employed by or acting IN COLLISION with me
company. This IS taken 20 refer TO MT
Coreu Judge Pr.tchard characterized thlS
as the pivotal question
The mrv was brought in. and Attorney
S1eek+ BEGAN the arguments The case
Viii likely get 90 the jury tomorrow h'sA'.