The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-01-06
NEWS FROM TACOMA.
CRY LOSES IT'S CASE AoAYysT THE
IsaMF AVID WAFER COMPANY.
Lever Cosxt shsssa nave Grantee .
yon-sufs-a8fAfnw Tr~~s and Earth
Knock q switch Engine 90 the
Edge of she Harbor. Breaking the
Ensiseer's Rfbs-ssx Applicants
for Certificates Before the HsAf-
cal EnaafneBs.
Tacoma Bureau os tns Post-TntesiigsnceS.
ifx pa~sHe Avenae.

TACOMA Jan E-sspecias.--Tacorna's
verdict against the Tacoma IAgnt and
Water Company tor s7s7 -. rendered ~
q Jury m ire superior oossrt January ].
1881. was reversed today By The supreme
court az Olympia A dispatch conveying
Tire n~ws was received here this after
noon BY Judge d. J. Crowley. OF counsel
for THE water company. and I. ". Ander-
son manager Of tne Tacoma Land Com
psny.
No s1h3ec. has been th> cause of more
agitation and facfional strife r. Tacoma
than the sale 20 ;he city OF the water and
lignt plants. During Mayor orr's first
term suit was brought against the COM
pAny ~ tire city. claiming damages
through sraud and srepresen tatloa for
slS0.00 Tie complaint was ordered
amended three times. and or the fourth
amended complaint fhe case went 20 trial
81 December Of Ise4 A jury visited the
location OF the Thomas snd Patterson
sprfBss. which were Sold with the plant,
and listened to large amount OF expert
testimony 70 the value o. the plants
cold and the flow OF water 81 the springs.
on January ire jury broaght In a YER
dict for s7Ss so.
Tie city was represented IN the case by
CITY Attorney Wiekersham ard Ben
sheeks For the water company sp-
pesrad Judge r.. j Crowley Judge Galu-
sha Parsons. and iafferIy. Senator Mitch
Ell OF Oregon. The latter appeared only
when the case WAS argged az Olympia.
Grounds Of The Reversal.
OLYMPIA. Jan. b.-Special.--Ths Gu
preme court today reversed the judgment
Of the superior court OF Pierce comfy In
the case OF the City ~ Tacoma vs. the
Tacoma Light and Water Company. ap-
pelham An action wss brought By the
respondent, the city, 10 recover damages
for deceit and misrepresentation % the
appellant In the sale Of water and light
plants. the purchase price Of which was
I.s50oo. The jury found for the re-
sponaent IN the sam OF S7s7 500 and from
JUDGMENT entered apon this verdict and
ar order OF tie sups-for court denying a
motion for new trial. an appeal was
taken. Fraud Is being relied upon as the
basis Of the plaintiffs cause or action.
u II not based upon anything In the con-
tract. bat on claims OF fslse representa-
ton In regard 20 the character. extent and
value OF the property sold.
After lengthy review Of the evidence
n the ease. the supreme court holds that
the evidence was insufficient 10 tastIfy the
submission 81 the case 10 the Jury and
that the defendants motion for a nor-suf,
should have been granted: also that the
trial Judge. IN ruling upon the motion
Tor new trial. expressed dissatisfaction
with the verdict and stated that he wouls
have found differently had he beer =
Juror. The supreme court holds that en-
'erisining such view, IL was the duty OF
the trial Judge 70 set the verdict aside
These are only two points considered In
the opinion. which Is written by Ip5va
Gordon and concurred in BIZ the associate
Judges. with the exception of Judge Dun
bar, who dIssents.