The San Francisco call., 1897-07-24
LETTERS Which
CUT BOTH WAYS
Interesting Proceedings in
the Semi -Tropic Land
and Water Case.
Demands Made for Payment OF
Guaranty of $4,000 Now
Said to Be Outlaw ed.
Orestes Pierce Produces the Oorre-
spondence With Defendants Mer-
rill, Bonebrake and Howes'

Ore.tes Pierce was the main witness IN
the semi-Tropic Land Company's litiga-
ton in Judge Troutt's department OF the
Superior Court yesterday. Mr.. Plerce
produced the correspondence that passed
between him and The defendants In tne
case. The letters showed he had demand
ed payment from Ex-Governor sam uel
Merrill Major George Bonebrake ana T.
c.. Howes for the sum OF $5O,OOo or as
much thereof as might be found due alter
giving credit for the partial payments
before made.
The troubl. grew out of a transaction In
which Henry Pierce, Emily f. Pope and
W. II. Talbot advanced cash to the de-
PENDANTS for assisting the Seml-Iroplc
Land and Water Company of Rialto, San
Bernardino County, to carry on its busi-
ness. There was a debt of $780, 900, and IN
order to take this up a loan OF $25oo0O
was negotiated with bank in San Fran
CISCO. To cover the balance the defend
ants executed their guaranty, the agree
ment being that tit should not be recorded
Several years passed before the plain
tiffs brought suit to enforce their claim
on the guaranty. Before that time the
defendants in this case notified the plain
tiffs here that it was their duty to protect
their interests by interpleading In suits
begun by the San Francisco creditors OF
the Semi-Tropic Company. Mr.. Pierce
and lis associates failed to take action on
the suggestion OF the defendants, ana
when at last this suit was brought the
| defendants replied that it was not their
Iault that the plaintiffs had failed to get
what was due them; that there was orlgl-
nalIy plenty of property to secure their
claim and that any loss they had suffered
was duo 10 their own carelessness.
Attorney E. S. Pillsbury called on Mr..
| Pierce to read the CORES pondence between
| himself and the defendants in regard to
the non-payment of the note given by the
| Semi Troplc Company. In connection
| there with he was called on to tell OF the
conversations of Ex-Governor Merrill
touching the guaranty note.
Samuel M. Shortridge, attorney for the
defendants Bonebrake and Howes, OBJ
jected on the ground that it was an at
tempt to interject into the record some
thing that did not appear in the pleadings
and that, therefore, could not possl bly, be
! regarded as pertinent to the issues Joined
| in this proceeding.
| The court decided to listen to the let
| ters, Mr.. Pillsbury remarking that they
| would undoubtedly be stricken out If they
| proved to be irrelevant.
Mr. Pierce said he understood that the
defe ndauts we're practically the Semi
Tropic Land and Water Company but
objection was made to the witness giving
his impressions, and the remark was or
| dered eXpunged from the record.
| Several letters were produced in which
| it appeared that in 1891 and 1892 the plain
tiffs had demanded the payment of the
| money due under the conditions OF the
! guaranty. When this part of the CORE
spondence was read Mr.. Shortrioge re-
marked that at most the letters proved
that al the dates mentioned the plaintiffs
| held the defendants to be liable under the
conditions of the guaranty and that it
| was apparent that through their own
neglect they had failed to bring the pres
| ent suit until after the claim had been
barred by the statute of limitations. In
| similar manner they had slept on their
| rights while the litigation was pending
| against the Semi-Tropic Company. 1t
they had been diIigent at that time they
| could have found sufficient property to
satisfy their claims, and no deficiency
| Judgment would now be here to cause It'll
| gatlon.
Mr.. Pierce was asked by Mr.. Pillsbury
why he had not pressed the claim against
the defendants ut the time the money was
| first considered to be due, and the witness
replied that they made such representa-
tions to MIN that he was induced to be
lenient.
Now, at last, comes out the proposition
| to change this action from the terms of
the original guaranty into an action on
| conditional guaranty" said Mr.. Short
ridge, but Mr.. Pillsbury hastily disclaimed
| any such intention and took another tack
| in mis- examination.
Further consideration OF the case was
ad journed until next Monday, when it
will be called up for argument.