Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1903-06-17

| 81 tue AENSON WHub W press aetot
We nesday, the celebrated Farmers
| Union Store" case was taking attention
of the circuit court and an anxious
public Evidence in the case, in which
| more than half hundredwitnesse tes-
! titled, closed Friday evening and Judge
! Fruit gave his charge to the jury Satur-
day morning 1t was delivered in q
! fair and forcible way and followed very
closely the rule laid down by the supreme
court in its recent rulings when revers-
ing the case for new trial Soon after
noon the Jury rendered it's decision,
| finding the entire list of ffty-two de
| PENDANTS responsible for their proper
tion of the shortage in the business af-
fairs of the so-called copsrtnership OF
| the Farmers Union of Virogua
JUDGES CHARGE
The essence Of Judge Fruits charge
to the Jury Is contained in the follow
| ing:
This action was brought by the plaintiff.
/ Samuel w, Moore, against the defendant Reu-
/ ben Nav, and some two hundred and seven
| Ci1er defendants to recover the sum OF
| Sl696,1S upon a promissory note, alleged on
! the part of the plaintiff o. have been exc
cuted by the defendants as CO. partners under
/ the name and stvle OF the Farmers Union
| Of Viroqus," and made payable to this plain
/ tin.
! Upon this trial you are not called upon 10
pass upon the liability OF all the parties who
| were originally made defendants in this ac-
| tion. You are here called upon to say by your
| verdict under all the evidence, whether the
| defendants who are now contestlag their liza
| bility upon the note in question, ere liable
| as co-paTtners, ana II You should not believe
| all OF these defendants 50 eontesting are
! liable as col partners, then which OF these con-
| testing defendants upon this trial, II any,
| are liable.
The note bears date April II, 1900 aud it is
| claimed upon the part Of the plaintiff that
| these defendants who are contesting their
liability upon the trial before you were CO.
1 partners and members Of certain co-part-
/ nershtD known as the Farmers Union OF Vi
| roqua" at and prior to the time OF the exc .u-
/ tion Op the note in question. There is evil
dence tending 20 show that on or about the
! 10Th day OF February 1920 a certain written
/ agree;u mt was prepared and presented toa
! number 81 farmers at a meeting held here 10
! Firoqua foi shat purpose, and that such con-
| tract or 8gi cement @Rs q co-partnership
4 agreement ard was then signed by severat
! of the men ill attendance, and was after
| wards left at a cC-tain store here in NircQul,
| known as the Farmers Union Store" 70 be
| signed by other farmers. II these contestag
! defendanY here upon this trial, or any u
! them, signed such written articles Of cO-part-
| nership with the understanding on their part
J when they signed the same, that such paper
| so signed by them was a contract or agree
| meut OF some kind, although they may have
/ not Understood its terms or the legal effect Of
| their 80 signing, they are nevertheless bound
1
! co-partnership and shoulI be held 70 be CO.
! partners as TO thier liabi1 y upon this note
! There Is evidence on the uart Of he plain
| tar tending to show that when these articles
| of CO. partnership were first drawn up and
| proD0s I'd that they were In "a printed FORM
| that some Of the members VITO were about to
| Join 1T q to become members OF the Farmers
| Union Of Niroqua, came tog either and dis
| cussed these different articlt ., and some
| amendment and changes We're made by one
| Of the defendants, O. NJ. Butt, in his own
| handwriting. The evidence further tends to
| show that number of the so-cAled MEM
| bers signed at this meeting after the changes
| had been so made. II also appears that on
! this paper or attached 10 these written arti-
J cles Of cO-partneryhip as they signed them,
| was continuation OF the paper, made,
either by pluning or fastening IN some waY,
| mott r piece OF paper to this, SO others cauid
| sign. That this agreement was signed sub
| senaenfiy by the defendants.
! The evidence on part OF some of tho uefen
| dantA tends 10 show that when some signed,
| they merely signed upon loose, detached
1 sheets Of paper, ard thar no articles Of co..
! partnership was attached Some of the de
| PENDANTS claim they paid one dollar and
| merely signed for the privilege OF trading at
the store for one year, and that they did not
| know or suppose they were signing any con-
tract whatsoever. 70 hold the defendants
rs co-partners II is necessary that IL should
| appear from all the evidence In the cnee that
they actually subscribed TO such articles OF
co-partnership knowing they were signing
some contract or agreement OF some ktud or
| IL any Of the defendants signed ko0se separate
| sheets OF paper that such signing was made
and done with the intention that they were
signing some written contract whereby they
| were binding themselves and that such loose
| or separate sheets OF paper were TO be deemed
| or treated as ;tttache 10 such articles OF co-
partnership.
pasted In the book ( the time Of the signing.
then it was import. lt 10 determine whether
they were present, ana whether such signing
| OF the list OF names in the book or on the sep
| arBte sheets was for u 9 purpose or with the
! understanding shat they were In fact sub
1 scribers to such artic les of Co-partnershiD.
1 And even if they wete then pasted ia the
brok, yet, as they IRE partly written aud
| partly printed, and there were seVera blank
pages between them and such list OF names.
| 1t was important TO determine whether they
| signed such list for the purpose or with the
| understanding that they were subscribing TO
| such articles OF co-partnership. Certainly
the defendants we're not 10 be bound as part
ners merely because they signed a list 0f
| names and paid a dollar for the pTi silege OF
| trading al the store,
| This so-called Farmers Union sf-
fair IL so familiar TO most readers Of
the CENSOR that reuetitiOn is scarcely
warranted Briefly slated, it may be
said that a dozen years or mo ago 1t
was conceived tnat many might better
their opp rtunity for buying merchan-
disc and farm supplies by banding
themselves togt her and take the bene-
fit Of middlemens' profits. There were
numerous good men connected with tine
scheme, but all wholly without expert
ence in merchandising, and as a natural
consequence must depend on hired help
to conduct the business. These agents
were liberal buyers and tine first thing
the managers knew they had big stock
Of shelf worn articles. and added TO this
was the natural decline in merchandise.
When ii was determined 10 close up
affairs of the concern deficit of nearly
or quite eight thousand dollars was
found to exist To meet this amount
was the next question, A meeting Of
supposed co partners or stockholders of
the concern was called, but the mum
Der Of those who were claimed to have
connection with the business was found
TO be far below the number who had
availed themselves Of TIE privilege Of
trading Mt the store during It's active
operations Hence ,1it was com
menced BY parties holding obligat ous
against the concern, regularly given by
managers Of the institution After re
peated meetings and attempts TO adjust
/. affairs it was taken 70 the courts
!, MANY paid their share Of the deficit
! and their names appear nolninally in
t1,s list Of defendants a. given below
Ruben May. 6 Buti, Elijah Tiifon. Henry
Stibaugh Arthur Rogers, Edwin X johnson
/ CHRIS Eilpfsou, k Pidcsek, Ole SYlegum, Mi
chaeI Anderson, Jotn j Wtlsey. e V Porter
y ID M Lees, + WlgaBowtkV, lewis sill
baugh. WjilIsrn silbaugh. T. Lillls, George
&elcb. l. II Glenn. J w Gilman. " " FulFer
" " Dunlap. Jshn I HHYes x 7 henison
. Jacob Dacb samuel HeHaen. u CLARKE, J6ht
. Fortncy. a W Green, jena y Furaas. Johf
! Johnson THOmrs huHsoHi IaiutHf, y
( Uarfiz %auuei sgibeFg, Andrew Chris.oter-
son. Nils Z Tale, W B ~iDaash Albert var,