The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-18

f admit, your Honor, the charges
NM as alleged in the complaint said
wv Attorney E. S. Pillsbury, who APP
peared for the defense yesterday
morning before Justice Barry in the case
Of William Z. Costley VS.. Wells, Fargo
d Co. THE question simply resolves it.
self into one of law. and I have agreed
with Attorney C. D. Squires, who ap-
pears here for the plaintiff, that in case
your Honor renders a decision against the
defendant corporation. damages in a nom
inal sum shall be charged against u.s."
1--WE do this, your Honor that we may
the sooner arrive at a final decision"
explained Mr. Squires. And thereupon
the two attorneys began the argument
of the case that will settle for once and
for all whether Wells-Fargo or Wells
Fargo's patrons shall pay the company's
share of the Governments war tax
The case of Costley is based upon the
refusal Of the defendant corporation to
transmit to Sacramento a package pre-
sented by the plaintiff at its regular Of
fee for that purpose. The refusal of the
company was based upon the ground
that Costley declined to provide the
stamp that under the war tax law the
carrier corporation is required to af1ix to
all receipts and bills of lading.
Mr.. Costley is a man with the courage
Of his convictions and a Puritanical
sense of the justice that is due from
. man to man. even in business, and when
he was asked by the clerk who weighed
in his package for the customary stamp
he refused to provide it. His package
ard proffered charges were pushed back
to him across the counter. He spent the
next two days in looking for some other
means of transportation, and for the loss
CT time, annoyance and additional cost
that occurred. he pra~- for damages in
the amount of $3.50.
Though on the face of the complaint
# would appear that Mr.. Costleys sole
object is a spare $3.50, his attorney an
nounced at the opening of the case yes
terday that with his plaintiff and himself
1t was--solel5r matter of principle; tina {
a decision and not damages was the Ill
innate hoped for.
In the absence of any precedent there
was nothing Of argument INDUCED in.
The two attorneys simply outlined two
adverse theories and the whole proceed
ing occupied no more than an hour of
Justice Barrys time.
Mr.. Squires stated that the intent of the
law was shown in its operation; that it
was the writer of the instrument that
was supposed to affix the nessary stamp.
The law provided that the drawer of
check. of a legal instrument CT of any
other taxable paper issuing from his bus
mess, should also pay the tax upon IT.
"a penalty of $50 is provided for" said
Mr.. Squires, sin cases where a carrier
or corporation issues a receipt or bill
without the Cancelled revenue stamp. The
corporations escape this penalty by re-
fusing to issue receipts without the
stamp, and that, as the carrier is COM
their patrons to pay this tax. The law
intends that a receipt or bill of lading
is not a complete and operative instru-
TIL no
stamp, ard that, as the carrier is COM
PEELED to furnish a complete and valid
receipt, it consequently should pay this
tax"
When the astute Pillsbury arose to pre-
sent his reasons why Wels-Fargo should