The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-24
lNON-SUIT GRANTED.
r,leod's $4,000 Damage Suit
AGAINST Blakeley Mill Co.
-cues TO An ABRUPT END.
80 sentence for servfus Rntten,
even Years for Msnslsnxhtsr-
suit Against the HilI Estate.
.c..rs TO AN ABRUPT END.

-. .u.t of Alexander Mcleod against
:. pa,t Bizkeley NH Company for dam
- x-aounsing 20 nearly So. GO came TO
~sa<v abrupt termination YESTERDAY.
- a. the plaintiffs own request. Judge
....surd granted a non-suit and dismissed
r. case
- eeurt yesterday. the counsel for the
- Company. E. G. Hughes and John p.
ssss SCI forth that the company had held
s<an;raet With Mcleod upon It's section
szsf n Mason county: that most OF the
ss~a.r ha1 beer CUT that all that had been
s-syered hsa been fully paid for. a fact
ssrh vas not denied by the other party
i ne suit. and that that contract, by The
.y-sSmeat OF both parties TO IL. had been
..rssief IN February, 1882
ne counsel for the plaintiff attempted
- e-nye through Mcleod q second con-
ss.rt alleged 20 be IN writing. executed
& August 800, and charged to be In the
-eaeessson Of the NAL company. Mcleod
srse6 tina. this contract was executed nv
csa Esnion about nine months before
K assth that Manager Campbell. wno
~ has charge of the mill. was not pres
=, a. the time the contract vas made
sx vas bis brother and assistant. James
r.usbeli. that there We're some clerks
acy Of them. that as Renson was blind. the
es1,rse. vas dram somewhere In Seat
u
AZ attempt yes also made 70 show nv
NfI<oas testimony that the mil COMPANY
IA hept the contract. yet Mcleod stated
tas, be had had the contract and had de-
fssres Il 10 Mr.. Chambers. OF Olympia
NJ Chambers was called and disclairned
ar knowledge OF such contract. though
!. remembered the contract which The
company claims has been Cancelled.
nafshsl K Smell q Tacoma attorney,
sas Ire next Witness for the plaintiff. He
testified that b had received a contrset,
sskcIeod's order. from Mr.. Chambers,
q Olympia. he could not however. identify
tas contract oi the lands 10 which 1t re-
h.sd The plaintiff also attempted 20 show
tat Capt Rsntnn had admitted the exist
escs OF this contract. and that Smell had
hsd some conversation with Capt Rem
srn abort = On board a small boat plying
isiEeen Shelton and Olympia. but Mr.
Ee could not remember the name OF the
tsst nor the name Of her captain he could
rsi state whether the boat in question was
tfsight boat or passenger boat He
slated that Capt. Renton was blind: but
h eoud not remember the name OF the
ysrson accompanying him nor would ne
eHaeftthr 70 Say -WHcAntF ms CONVERSATION
vith Capt. Renton had reference to this
garticular contract or not.
TAe plaintiff also tried 10 show that a
esreugh but gnavaling search had been
naie for the contract, aad upon that
roanc asked leave 30 INTRODUCES secosd-
sfY testimony as 10 It's contents: bat the
tasrt held thar the evidence had been In
Enciept under the rules OF law TO permit
b plaintiff 20 Introduce oral testimony
y TO the contents Of the contract, espe-
aly In view OF the ueager and unsat-
.stsctory evidence given as To the execution
q the contract
Upon this ruling II the court. the at
isrneys for Mcleod voluntarily asked for
! non-sait with reference to this charge
lnd also that the othsr charges in the suit
b dismissed without prejudice" and the
court 50 ordered.