The San Francisco call., 1899-10-07
CAUGHT IN 4
TANGLE OVER
A LAND DEAL
Weller's Suit Against
Barber and Wife.
Oakland Office San Francisco Call.

The long delayed deposition of Alvan d.
Brock, taken at the National Home for
Disabled Veteran Soldiers at Hampton,
Va, where he is an inmate, was offered
in evidence to-day in the complicated land
case of H o. Weller against DR.. f. 7.
Barber and wife, Matilda Lunt. Barber,
now on trial in Judge Ellsworths court,
wherein plaintiff seeks to recover two
thirds of S27 800, as the proceeds from a
sale of land in Los Angeles County to the
Pacific Improvement Company.
The Brock deposition had been delayed
mainly on account of yellow fever break
ing out at the home several months ago.
Brock is a printer, aged 6S years, and ac-
cording to his deposition was swindled
out Of his land during the boom at San
Pedro ten years ago, and the matter has
been in litigation ever since, involving
many people, besides the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company and the Pacific I'M
proVement Company.
The story of the present suit is long
and complicated one. In June, lSSt, A w.
Timms sold or bonded to AlVan D; Brock
a certain 704-acre tract in the Rancho
Palos Verdes for $25 600, payable in install
ments. a month later Brock bonded 10
John w. Pearson, assigning to the latter
his agreement with Timms, in consldera-
ton that Pearson would pay the ful
amount of the purchase price and take
title to himself and convey to Brock an
undivided one-fourth interest, free and
clear of membranes.
Now, according to the complaint, Pear.
son took deed to himself in the name OF
his agent, H. Y. Burner, and when BROCK
demanded a conveyance to himself OF ms
one-fOurth interest Pearson refused.
Brock then sued Pearson for decree that
the latter held the one-fOurth interest in
trust. The case went to the Supreme
Court, and eventually, IN February, 1881,
Brock got a decree for One-eighth interest
and requiring Pearson to execute deed
for that share; In the meantime the San
Pedro Harbor Dock and Land Association,
the Southern Pacific Extension Company,
with full knowledge of the foregoing
facts-so the complaint recites-purchased
from Pearson certain interests and were
then made parties defendant. Pearson
still refused to give Brock d deed for his
share, and, being without means TO prose-
cute the suit, Brock sold his interest
against Pearson to Benjamin f. Atherton,
who, on February 27. 1880, sold to the pres
ent plaintiff, H. 0. Weller
Now prior to the Brock-Pearson case
trial, Weller entered into an agreement
with f. T. Barber continues the com
plant, whereby the latter agreed to un-
dertake, and with reasonable speed to ad-
just and settle, all differences between
Brock and Pearson and other defendants;
that he would retain and employ counsel
to press settlement. 1t was agreed that
the proceeds from the litigation or sale
of the property after all other claims
had been settled, should be divided in
three parts, plaintiff to receive two parts,
or two-thirds, and Barber one-third, in
full COMPENSATION for his services. Later
Brock also decided his interest to Barber
for the same purpose of carrying out This
same trust agreement between plainlft
and Barber.
Barber now becoming vested with the
legal title to the tract, in trust, neVerthe-
less, for plaintiff, Brock, and one l.. NJ.
Stratton, an intermediate grantee, the
complaint says he delivered to Stratton
a trust agreement wherein he (Barber)
declared Stratton to be entitled to one
quarter of all moneys or property coming
from the eventual settlement, or from
decree in the BroCk-Pearson suit, and
Stratton decided to A. E. Davis all his
| interests. Continuing, the complaint re-
THAT on January 20. 1890, Barber exc
cuted deed to his wife, Matilda Lunt
Barber, conveying all his interests, upon
an alleged consideration of love and af-
fection. The deed was recorded
February IS, 1896. Mrs. Barber was
cogniZant of all matters and knew of the
original trust deed and knew the deed she
received was in fraud of plaintiffs inter
ests and the other benefciaries. On
March II, 1897, defendants agreed to sell
to the Pacific Improvement Company the
one-eighth interest for $27 500. They so
sold and received the money, and
subsequently defendants denied and re
pudiated the original trust, denying that
plaintiff was entitled to any right or in
terest in the proceeds. of the sale TO the
Pacific Improvement Company.
In conclusion the very lengthy COM
plant recites that Barber willfully disre-
garded his obligations under the trust;
that Barber and wife conSpired to detraud
pldllllll Ol his lllltltol anu lllC pAONCCUS
Of the sale; that defendants are execution
proof
In his prayer Weller asks that the court
decree that Barber received the convey
ance in trust; that the deed to Mrs. Bar
Der is without consideration; that defend
ants be required to account for the
proceeds; that they be declared guilty of
fraud; that some disinterested party be
appointed receiver
The trial has already occupied three
days and in all about thirty-SeVen deeds
have been submitted as exhibits. and more
are promised The case for complications
rivals any that has come within Judge
Ellsworth's scope to hear.
The light thrown on the complications
by Brock in his deposition is rather hazy.
He appears to know little of Wellers in
terests, and says he repudiated the agree
ment from Atherton to Weller because he
deemed it fraudulent. He claims incident
ally that Pearson duped him and that
Pearson had given out the report that he
Brock) had died; that in 1893, while in
San Francisco, +. T. Barber requested
him to call with him at the Pacific I'm
provement Company's office to show
that the dead had been restored. He
went there and related his circumstances
and relation to the property. and learned
that it appeared Pearson had also swim
died them that Pearson had got off
with $60G G00 and secured notes for 900,
but that the corporation had corraled
these notes before Pearson died.
The trial of the suit will be resumed
next Tuesday morning. e. L. Campbell
and ]. S. Spillman appear for plaintiff,
and Judge benson of Attorneys Oatman &
benson for defendants.