The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1899-07-27

plaintiffs to make good their assertions
by competent evidence.
FAILED TO MAKE GOOD A SINGLE AssER-
TIoN AGAINST uoFER BROS.
This evidence was brought before the
Court, or at least all of the evidence
which was Mt their command. They eX-
hausted all OF the testimony bearing
upon these questions and simply failed
To prove q single misappliCation of the
moneys which the Defendants admitted
10, have received. The subpoena duces
tecum which they issued TO the business
manager and bookkeeper OF the con-
cern, brought the books before the
Court for the inspection of that body,
and they contain everything necessary
tOishow what moneys were received and
what disposition was made Of them. Not
cent had been misapplied, not cent
was misappropriated, and there was not
cent OF the receipts which the books
did not show what disposition had been
made of it and that il was applied
in the due course of business. Hence
| the contention of the said Plaintiffs
that they are entitled 10 an accounting
| falls 10 the ground, because that IN what
| they sued for and that is what they
got, and when the accounting was had,
that il the account brought into court
for the inspection OF the plaintiffs and
their Counsel and for the inspection of
the Court, il shows the allegations OF
the Complaint as 10 the misapplicatiOn
of these funds TO be Incorrect When
! this fact was manifest from an inspec-
! tion OF the books the said counsel moved
| for an accounting, which was exactly
what they moved for when they filed
their complaint.
Nothing could have been accomplish
/ ed by taking the ease out Of Court or
referring il. This could have been
done and the books submitted to an
expert for examination, but the books
were easily understood and the Court
could see for itself, as all other persons
could see, that they showed speciii
cially the disposition Of the funds OF the
Defendant Corporation.
HOPPER RRos. PRODUCED THEIR BOOKS AMI
couRTED FULLEST INVESTIGATION.
We have not claimed 10 have inter
posed any plea in bar 10 the plaintiffs
Complaint. We were willing 10 submit
themiin opencOurt upon the meritsthere
OF and submit every act and thing done
from tilt llttpA On hi VIC hikahAeaAlNi
down 10 the day of the trial. NOthinl
was concealed, nothing sought 10 b
! concealed no technical or dilatory tao
tics were adopted by the defendants
When called into court by the summon
, they met the issue directly and wen
! willing 10 submit 20 all that the cour
: might require. They cOurted the full
2 est investigation they furnished all q
+ the information required by the plain
D tiffs aud desired by them. They neve
d pleaded a settlement with the stock
T. holders OF the concern, and II Il a sui
bv stockholders. IL was their lega
90 right to have access 10 the books an
they might have demanded them on
a. well as in court for the purpose OF a.
= certaining what had been done with th
e funds Of the corporation. No mat
Il ters Of law were submitted for the COZ
II sideration Of the court, the question
N wereall questions Of fact
" The said counsel further takes the p
D. sition a. 10 what matter OF accoui
r should exist, and special direction
Y should be given respecting questions
p inquired into.
nt In a proper ease this doubtless wonl
i. be correct practice. But IL is rule
practice and not a rule Of law, for u
nj reason before stated There was no o
T. casion for il. IL was the primary oble
IN Of the complaint 20 inquire INTO u