The Colfax gazette. [volume] (Colfax, Wash.) 1893-1932, 1900-12-28
PRUND1ROWERS WON
Sued y Nurseryman, They
'est Him In Court.
Detndants Claimed The Tree NJ,
Conspired and Failed In
Their Agreements.

Two interesting civil cases invoIr;,
several thousand dollars in monov v,ns
trled before Jury in the superior conrt
ITsC before the holiday adjournment.
Ihey were won by the defendants. w V
living and Francis Hartley Brown. both
ol whom have fine farms and extensive
prune orchards on the Palouse road
elght and ten miles east of Colfax. The
suits were brought by F. W. Settlemier
proprietor OF nursery at Woodburn
oregon. The case against Mr.. EWING
was lot principal of S140O on a note
given by him in 1893 TO the Mix Nnrserv
company of Moscow, Idaho. for 1000
prune trees at 30 cents each. the note ha-
ing later assigned to Settlemier. interest
lot over more than seven wears. more
than doubling the original amount wes
also demanded. Mr.. Ewing refused nav
ment on the grounds that the Mix Com.
pany had violated it's agreement with
MIN; that it had sold him trees purnort-
ing TO have been grown in this country.
put which had really been prOpagated in
Uhe oregon nursery; that the nursery
company and Settlemier had entered in
10 conspiracy to fOist these trees uDon
nun as nome grown, thereby deceivinp
MIN; that 1t had assigned his note in the
race OF an express agreement not to do
so, and, finally, that the holders of the
note had, after its drawing, and unbe-
known to him, added a line at the
bottom STIMULATING that the note was
10 De renewed before the statute of limit
atlon OF SIX years should run against it.
Inc Jury conceded in one OF more of
THESE views and brought in q verdict for
Mr. Ewing. 1t is not known whether
the plaintiff will carry the matter to the
higher court.
Mr.. Ewing claimed that in the spring
OF 1898, upon the solicitation OF the Mix
Nursery Company, he entered into an
agreement to plant a prune orchard of
% acres. The nursery company agreed
TO care Tor the trees after planting, re-
placing dead ones, and, when the
orchard came into bearing, to take the
original purchase price from the crop,
ltsell bearing all the expense attendant
upon the picking, packing and marketing
OF the fruit, withdrawing all claims
against him when so satisfied However
the expense attendant upon marketing
the frult, while borne by the company,
was to be deducted from the value OF
the crop marketed and the remainder
applied to the purchase price of trees.
Mr.. Ewing gave his note, which was
IN reality nothing more than a memoir
andum testifying that the Mix Company
held in interest TO the amount of $1400
IN the'crOps which might be produced by
the orchard in the future. The note
was non negotiable, and the claim was
made that it had been assigned to
Settlemier, proprietor of the WOODBURY.
nursery. and that the clause specifying
that it should be renewed was added
after the instrument had been drawn,
and without the knowledge or consent
OF the maker
The Mix Company had failed to live
up to it's contract, Mr.. Ewing claimed,
as to marketing the crop, and in add
ton had deceived him, through con-
spiracy with Settlemier, into buying trees
not home grown, as he had been led to
believe
The case against Mr.. Brown is exactly
similar, except as to the amount, which
is $3.50, with interest. He has the same
defense also.