The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-01-03
VERDICT HAS
Been APPEALED
Heaviest Financial Decision
Ever Rendered There.
CATTLEMAN GETS DAMAGES
More Than $4,000 involved
in the Deal.

Guthrie, o. T., Jan. IA case involv-
rendered in an Oklahoma court has been
appealed from Pawnee county to the
territorial supreme court, and is docketed
for the January term of court which
convenes during the coming week. The
verdict of the lower court was for $751;
2e5.o1 in favor Of J. c. Stribling, an Okla
homa cattleman, and against r. NJ. Sny-
der and GeorgeP. Olmstead, of Kansas
City, Mo-, and involves the ownership of
two big ranches and severa Thousand
head of cattle.
Snyder and OImstead owned the Coro-
nado cattle ranch in Arizona territory,
with certain western cattle thereon. Strib-
bling owned cerain cattle in the Usage
Indian reservation in Oklahoma and GER
tain extensive pasture land leased in
that reservation. Stribbling at that time
claimed to own 1900 head Of cattle. A
deal was entered between Snyder and
Olmstead on the one side and StribblinG
on the other, by which the former were
TO buy Stribbling's cattle and take his
pasture leased for certain money consid-
Grafton and in addition were to turn over
to Stribbling the Coronado ranch and
cattle The deal also included certain
grain and large fields of hay TO be turned
over to Snyder and Olmstead by Strib-
bling.
After the parties had respectively ex-
amined the property involved, the deal
was maoe and a contract entered into.
l.Sut when the time of exchange arrived
Snyder and Olmstead claim there was a
big shortage in the number Of cattle and
the amount Of fed stuff claimed by Strib-
bling to belong to him, and they, there
fore. refused to consummate the deal.
Etrfbbling, on the other hand, claimed
that everything was as he had repre-
scented it to be. When the matter came
TO trial, Stribbling's claims were sus-
tanned and he received judgment against
Snyder and Olmstead of s161.295.o1.
In appealing the case to the Oklahoma
supreme court, the attorneys for Sny-
der and O1mstead state that the con-
tract anu bill of sale sells 1900 head of
cattle. but that Stribbling delivered only
10, 1856 head on October 1st, leaving short
age of 1904 from which they deduct the
total number picked up in the Usage pas
lures after November the 10th, leaving
a total shortage they claim, of 2,2o4 head,
which at the contract price of $40 per
head, would amount to a shortage of
$50, le0 In addition, Snyder and Olmstead
claim a shortage in feed of $4,5S; in
excess delivery Of two-year-old cattle,
SIG. 600; in damage to cattle shipped. $26
&5; in damages on cattle received from
other parties, s27,el0-a total of siSf6oS,
which amount they set aside as damages
TO counteract the verdict Of sl61.295ol in
Stribbling's favor.
Snyder and Olmstead claim that the
contract called for 400 head Of two-year-
oads, when in fact there were only 100
head delivered; also that Stribbling re-
ceived certain cattle from other parties TO
All out the contract number sold.
On these grouncs the attorneys for the
tiff-in-error, ask the supreme court
20 set aside the verdict of the lower court
and grant them a new trial.
A feature of interest in connection with
the case is that Horace Speed. United
States attorney. is the attorney for Strib-
bling and Delegate Is. S. MCGUIRE is the
principal attorney for Snyder and Ohm
stead.