Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1907-10-05
DECISION GIVEN IN
FAVOR OF COUNTY
Court lnstructs Jury to Return Ver-
dict For Defendant in Re, Board
Commissioners VS.. Max. Frost.

defendant versus Max Frost. plaintiff,
which was on hearing in the district
court for this county Thursday after.
noon and all day yesterday before
Judge Ira A. Abbott, of the Second
judicial court, sitting in place of Judge
John r. McFie Of the First judicial
court before whom the case had al
ready been tried twice, came to a
close last evening about Z O'Clock
when Judge Abbott instructed the jury
to find a verdict for the defendant,
which was accordingly done.
The county Of Santa Fe, by the con-
sent and with agreement Of the
plaintiff brought suit to set aside a
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff
for some $2,016 obtained in suit
which was instituted seven years ago
by the Santa Fe Water and Light
Company, which company then claim
ed that certain accounts due it for wa
ter and electric light furnished the
county amounting to about $1,25l were
unpaid and still due. Four years
|ago Colonel Frost was substituted as
plaintiff. the suit and all claims under
lit having been transferred to him by
Manager I. Sparks, of the Santa Fe
Water and Light company in payment
of services. A. B. Renehan was the
attorney for the Santa Fe Water and
Light Company at that time
and thereafter became attorney
for Colonel Frost The case was tried
before Judge McFie and District AT
torney E. c. Abbott appeared for the
county. A judgment was then and
there rendered in favor of Colonel
Frost. Thereafter statements hav.
| ing been made that the claims had
been settled by the county, Colonel
Frost voluntarily re-opened the case
| for another full investigation and for
satisfaction of a thorough exam
| ination as to the validity Of the first
| Judgment and the claims upon which
| it was granted. A second trial was
had before Judge McFie, District At
torney Abbott appearing for the coun.
ty, and Attorney Renehan for Colonel
Frost. After a thorough hearing sec
ond judgment was granted in favor OF
Colonel Frost.
1t should be understood right here
that in each case the term of one
year allowed by the statute for re
opening Judgment had elapsed ant
that Colonel Frost was under no OBJ
legation whatever to consent to the
reopening of the judgment unless he
so desired and for his own satisfac
ton. Some three months ago repre-
sentations were made to Colonel Frost
that the books of the Santa Fe Water
and Light Company in the year 1896
showed that the certificates of indebt
edness upon which the two judgments
were based had been paid by the coun
ty and taken in liquidation of taxes
Colonel Frost and his attorney. Mr.
Renehan, then came to the conclusion
that they would again voluntarily re
open the case, as neither in the leas
desired to collect money from the coun
'lty on certificates of Indebtedness O.
accounts that had been satisfied ant
THAT if the allegations advanced b,
District Attorney R. c. Gortner, tina
the accounts had been paid were sub
|stantiated after another investigation
they would relinquish all claims the,
Ihad attained and repay the amour
|collected on the second judgment.
stipulation to that effect was entered
Into by Mr.. Renehan for Colonel Eros
land District Attorney Gortner for th'
lcounty.
| At the hearing yesterday records 0
the Santa Fe Water company of Whicl
neither Attorney Renehan or Colone
Frost had the least knowledge or cog
nizance were produced showing tina
claims of the water and light compan,
which were believed to be identica
with those upon which the Judgment
were based, had been settled SOM
twelve years ago. The county records
did not disclose such settlement, how
ever but the court found for th'
defendant and hence the verdict.
Under the stipulation entered int
|by the attorneys for both complainant
|and defendant, the amount heretofore
Icollected will be repaid to the count,
treasurer in proper form and in du'
time.
| Colonel Frost and Mr.. Renehal
feel that the evidence offered on tn
part of the county amounted practic
ally to demonstration that the claim
had been paid, for while the indemnit,
of the claims was only shown by in
ference, yet the inference is sufficient
ly strong to bring conviction to tn
plaintiff that the claims which ha'
been sold to him by the Water Com
pany should not have been sold t
him. Hence, satisfied with the proc
he will rest the case.