Union gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1899-1900, 1899-11-10
THE CIRCUIT COURT
THE CHITTIM BARK AND
OTHER CASES.

Attorney Brown Will Appeal from Judge
Hami1ton's Decision.
i Circuit court opened for business Mon
day morning with Judge Hamilton il
his proper place. A diversion at thii
term of court was the absence of gfane
jury. A law passed at the last session Of
the legislature renders the empannelinl
of grand jury unnecessary. However,
one may be secnred if parties demand it
The district attorney may use his own
discretion in finding Indictments.
The only criminal cases offered for tht
consideration of the court were those ei
Taylor and Fleece, who were indicted
for obtaining money under false pre-.
lenses from A. Wilhelm & Sons. of Mon
roe. They were arraigned Monday
They plead Tuesday, and their attor
neys E. L, Bryan and W. S. McFadden.
demurred to the Indictment, on the
ground that the facts charged do not
constitute crime. Argument was made
in the evening, and the decision of Judge
Hamilton which was given Wednesday
morning exposes. a serious flaw i'll the
statutes of Oregon.
The Indictment in substance alleged
that Taylor and Fleece had sold to A.
Wilhelm & Sons bulks, bales and sacks
of what they represented to be mer-
chantable chittem bark and nothing
else. Examination proved that besides
a small quantity of chittan1 bark, the
bales and sacks contained oak and fir
bark, stones and other substances.
The defence centended that even if
the allegations were true, under the
statutes of Oregon, no crime had been
committed. fl ask for bread and you
give me store, my confidence in you
may be shaken, but you are guilty of no
offence. The point is here: If a person
obtain money from another by. willful
Misrepresentation he has committed q
crime by obtaining money under false
pretenses. But no oral evidence of his
guilt can be admitted by the court. The
evidence of his guilt must be represented
by token which in law. is defined as
sign or symbol; and in this case no
writing was in evidence. Attorney
Brown contended that the bales and
sacks with their contents, sold by
Fleece and Taylor, were in themselves
tokens in that they represented or pre-
tended to represent another thing. II
the point at issue were the quality of
the article sold there would be no token.
That is, if the defendants had delivered
rk to Wilhelm & Sons which
they represented to be frst-class chittem
bark. but which proved to
be of inferior quality, there.
would be no case against them. But if
the article sold was substance entirely
foreign to what it was represented to be,
it stood as token aud should be adj
mitted as evidence,
The point is fine one and if is possi-
BILE that the higher courts may have a
tilt with it.. The witnesses and jurors III
in the case have been dismissed. The
expense to the county has been consid-
erable, one of the witnesses coming from
Pendleton.
But twosjury cases had been heard up
to last evening. The case of Main VS..
Laferty for the recovery of money oecu-
pied good ,sharesof the day Monday,
the jury returning verdict for Laferty.
Tillotson vs.. Fischer developed intoss
stubborn contest. It was an action to-
recover. money on "a contract. Fischer
had entered into contract with Tillot-
son for the building of a revetment along
the river bank near Fischer's mill, agree
ing to pay for the same 1925. The re-
when completed did not, in Mr.. |
Fischer's opinion, meet the requirements
Of the contract, and he refused to pay
Tillotson more than $40. The ease
came on for hearing Monday evening
and went to the jury-H. M. Finley.
John Wyatt, John Smith, Eli Spencer,
{. H. Hawley, John Todd, WIS. Tom
inson, N. Galloway. Ps Avery, Joseph
zates, M. v. Harpole and JOS. Hecker,
tuesday night. Alter debating the mat
,er to their satisfaction verdict, for Til
olson in the sum Of 5000 was brought in |
Thursday at 3 O'Clock, a. m.
Mathew George, who asked for di71
7orce from Sarah E. George on the
ground of desertion was granted the re-
ief prayed for.
Cynthia A. Mitchell stated that she
lad been deserted by w. ). Mitchell and /
1sked for a divorce, which request was
granted. g
The case of in. Brandeberry aad I
Iol1ieL. Brandeberry vs.. Peter Riokard,
It al, came up for trial Tbarsday morn
ng. The plaintiffs Brought an action /
gainst defendaptsto recover money.
he case haf been submitted to the
udge wherwe went to press.