Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1905-10-12

virtually complete tho case for the
Joint drainage board and the inter
vcnors associated with it. Arguments
of the attorneys will follow
Says He Was Always Ready.
Contractor Brown, who gaze part of
his testimony on Wednesday, went
back on the stand at the opening OF the
court yesterday, and most of the fore
noon was consumed in the continuation
of his evidence. He declared that he
had always been ready to go on with
the work specified in his 1903 contract
but on the advice of former Chairman
Edgecombe, who told him it would e
wise to wait, - he did not insist on
commencing. On cross-eNamination
he admitted that he talked with the
auditors of the two counties at ditfes-
cnt times. and was once notified bv
them to start work.
Referring to more recent events,
Brown acknowledged that he never
Thought much about having any claim
on the drainage district until after a
supreme court decision was announced
in August of this year, holding that the
curative ac. of the last general assem-
bly, conferred power on the Joint sup
crvisors' board to take up old ditch pro-
eecdings and carry them through
Brown sresponses to questions under
cross examination indicated that he
had never pressed his present claims
from May. 1904 to August, 1905, and
that he did not insist during that period
ON holding the board to the contract.
UnIOaded One DredSe.
Brown told of purchasing two
drcdgcs on the strength of his contract.
one Of which was shipped to Mondamin
and unloadcd there, the other being
left at Chicago where it is still. The
two machines are alleged to have cost
Sl5,OOO which is thrce-fourtlls the
amount of the damage claim. Some
lumber, Brown said, was unloadcd at
Mondamin and hauled out to the All N
creek ditch route. In August 1904, the
whole outfit was reloaded and shipped
away. The opposing attorneys drew
out the fact that the ,lrcdges has since
been sent to Nebraska and uscl in
ditch work there
Former Chairman Edgccomb, on be
ing summoned To the witness chair by
Browns attorneys, made positive de-
NAL that he ever advised the plaintiff
to wait before doing any work. On the
declared Edgecomb, he was
continually advising and urging Brown
TO 60 ahead, while the latter interposed
repeated objections that there was no
way for him to get his money. Edge
comb Stated that he told Brown some
way would be found to pay him if he
would proceed under the terms of the
regardless of the muddled
legal conditions
But did you not at one time tell
MIR. Brown he had better waltz" asked
one of the plaintiffs ATTORNEYS.
mo, sir, replied the witness with
decisive accent, II never was waiter
in this ditch business. !"
Alleges Fiat Refusal.
a little further on, while detailing
that took place in the
early par' .f 1901, Edgccomb made
This statement
when was urging Brown to go
ahead with the work he fatty refused
to do SO because the status Of the new
drainage law was at that time uncer-
tain
Edgecomb said that he had one talk
with Brown in the presence OF a man
named Downey, secretary of the firm
of X. A. Brown & Co., and Attorney
:. w. Kellogg of Missouri Valley The |
after took the stand and gave testi-
nony corroborating the substance Of |
he conversation as Edgecomb had
given it,
Auditor g. w. Atkins of Harrison
'ounty was recalled to the stand and
lis supplemental evidence developed
he fact that after the supreme courts
lecision rendering the old drainage law
Ineffective Brown went to the auditors
'tiice at Logan and demanded that the
'ond and contract given by himself be
eturned. The witness, who was then
|eputy auditor, told Brown he did not
hink he had a right to surrender the
rstrumeuts. but would call the Joint