The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1902-10-31
Craddock's ''Insidious Deceit on
His ''Unsuspecting Victim"
This from the Court Record Of the
2Sth Missouri Appeals.
Not Charges Or Lawyers Brief, But the
Finding and Opinion Of the Court
Judge Philips Scores the DO Right
Candidate for Governor.

that the court, at his own instance,
instructed the jury that unless they
found the defendant made the repre-
sensations for the purpose of cheat
ing and defrauding the plaintiff, they
would find for the defendant. Cit
ing authorities.)
3. Complaint is made of the action
of the trial court in not striking out
that portion of the petition, and re-
fusing to exclude any evidence
thereof, which set out that defend
ant, at the time he rendered her the
deed from himself for the land, re-
peated the statements respecting the
quality, situation and value OF the
land. 1t is true, as contended by the
learned counsel, that plaintiff had al
ready parted with her property on
the faith of the prior statements.
If it were intended by this allega-
ton and proof to support an ac-
ton predicated alone on this CONVEX
sation, the objection would be well
taken. But this latter transaction is
a part of the history-the continuing
facts-of the case, almost insepara-
bly, connected with the main facts,
and the final contamination of the
defendants fraudulent scheme. While
plaintiff had parted with her prop
erty on the delivery of the first mort
gage from Alley, yet, when she went
with her brother to see defendant
for an explanation of the remarkable
conduct of Alley, in forwarding her
deed to another piece of land, with
out one word of explanation, the de-
PENDANT, in furtherance of his scheme,
and to give plausibility to his pro-
fessed honesty and fairness, and in
order to get the plaintiff to take a
deed from him, assuming again pay
nient of his bogus claim OF $1,000,
and to quiet her apprehensions OF
some wrong, renewed his statement
about the character of the land. Ihis
latter transaction and statement
bore, upon the issue of the quo
amino: as much so as the subsequent
statements of a fraudulent grantor or
assignor in proof of the antecedent
fraud. Getting authorities
4. The fifth instruction given for
plaintiff is objected to because it told
the jury that, although defendant
may have told plaintiff not to rely
upon his representations, and that
he did not advise her to take the
mortgage, yet, if they further believe
that such statements were not made
in good faith, but for the purpose OF
misleading the plaintiff, such fact
would not avail the defendant. In
those instances there is a close con-
nection between the spirit of the
law and the code of ethics. After
the defendant had, by his persuasive
statements and maneuvefs, sown the
seeds of confidence in the mind OF
his unsuspecting victim, it would be
a jugglery of words to say he can
escape liability for his insidious de-
ceit by cunningly experimenting his
convincing speech with the express
sion "but you need not believe what
I say, or act upon it." A man would
be no less a defamer Of character,
ad damnum, who should proclaim to
bystanders: "My neighbor, John
Smith, is thief; he stole a horse;
but you need not act towards him
upon what say"
Getting authorities and law applica-
BILE to case.)
S. More serious objection is urged
against the fourth instruction, as to
the measure of damages. The con-
tention of counsel is that, while the
evidence showed that the land was
of very little value-not over So per
acre-there was no evidence of the
value of the land as represented.
This objection would be valid had
there been nothing more in the de-
PENDANTS representations than the To-
cation, quality and character OF the
land. In the case at bar, the defend
ant in various forms represented the
value of this land to be not less than
$4,000; that an offer of SIS per acre
had. been made for it; that he never
loaned money on land at over one
half its value, and he had loaned
$1,000 on this. IL was more Ihah Uhe
expression of mere opinion. 1t was
n fact he was stating, and he had
purpose to have plaintiff so under
stand it. He must have known, as
plaintiff was about TO part with her
little all of household goods and take
a second mortgage on land, that the
value of the land in excess of the
amount of the first mortgage was
an all-important fact to be informed
about. The defendant undertook to
give her this information. Why
should he not be held to the valua-
ton as fixed by himself? How Is
plaintiff. under defendants theory,
10 secure the benefit of what. in jus
tice and good conscience, belongs TO
herr Here the material representa-
ton made by defendant was as to
the value of this land. He is re-
lsponsible for that falsehood. Now,
suppose the valuation described to
the plaintiff should fall far below ths
lamount Of defendants prior claim
and the plaintiffs damage. To say
that his statement Of fact ought not