The record-union., 1896-01-17
THE JURY DISAGREED.
The Suit Of George Francis Against c.
v. Kellogg and D. Simmons.

The Suit of George Francis Against Z.
V. Kellogg and D. Simmons.
The trial of the suit of George Fran
els against c. V. Kellogg and D. j. Sim
mons for the recovery of 81, 500 was re-
sumed before Judge Catlin and jury
in Department One of the Superior
Court yesterday. It developed from the
testimony that Francis owed Kellogg
1896 for rent. Kellogg attached Fran
els stock of secondhand furniture
Francis wanted the keeper removed
and the attachment released. He went
to Kellogg with d. J. Simmons, and said
he would execute a bill Of sale If kel-
Iogg would release the attachment. kel-
Icgg agreed, and the understanding
was that the stock of goods should be
sold and the proceeds of the sale de-
voted to the payment first of the
amount due Kellogg and the costs and
expenses, and the balance should be
given to Francis. Kellogg had no other
purpose than to obtain the amount due
him. Simmons sold the stock for S3UO
out of this Kellogg was paid and the
balance given to Francis. Kellogg had
nothing to do in any way with the mat
ter except to obtain his money. He
never touched the stock or interfered
with it, he contended, but simply got
his money.
Francis claimed Simmons did not get
enough money for the goods, and that
he bought it in for himself and made a
profit off it.
Simmons admitted being the pur-
chaser himself, and claimed that he lost
money in the transaction.
Hermann Mier, A Dittmar, Francis
and an employe Of the Capital Furni-
tLre Company testified that the articles
sold were reasonably worth from 81 200
to 81 500.
For the defense, Deputy County As
SCISSOR Z. J. Kay exhibited a list Of
property returned by Francis. Fran
els valued his property at $500 Clinton
L. White, for the plaintiff, objected to
the statement on the ground that the
law did not require the taxpayer to
place a value on his property, but that
If was the duty of the Assessor to as
sess it. and it was a taxpayers priv
iIege to place the lowest possible value
on his property. The objection was
overruled.
Auetioneer r. E. Greer and ]. H. Mill
man. a former furniture dealer, said
they did not think the property was
worth more LDdLu PAU VI e-tcs
The case was given to the jury late
IN the afternoon.
After being out a short time the jury
returned and asked for additional in
struetions. They wanted to know
whether it had to be proved that there
had been q. conspiracy between Kellogg
and Simmons to defraud Francis in or
der to find for the plaintiff.
Judge Catlin told them 1t was not nee
essary for that to be proved. Kellogg.
he said. was the trustee Of the prop
erty, and Simmons in selling it was his
agent. If Simmons sold the property
contrary to Francis orders, Kellogg,
simmons principal. was bound by the
result Of the transaction the same as
Simmons.
The jury then went out again to delib-
crate
The jury came into court shortly be-
fore 8 O'Clock last night and reported
that they could not arrive at a verdict.
Judge Catlin being satisfied that an
agreement could not be arrived at ex-
cused them.
The jury stood seven to five in favor
Of the defendants. 1t required nine
votes to arrive at a verdict.