The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-11-30
IT MUST BE PAID.
Bonding Company Held for a
Lumber Bill.
Federal Court Decides One of
Blanchard Cases.
JUDY is AT WORK.
Many Cases Being Considered
Before Judge Pollock.
LinscOtt State Bank Case on
Docket This Afternoon.

today was taken up with testimony
and argument in the case of the Star
Lumber company against the Massa-
chusetts Bonding company and Arthur
]. McCabe, as trustee for the Blanch-
ard Contraction company, in bank
ruptcy.
The lumber company claims it sold
to the Blanchard company a bill of
lumber valued at $1,915.47, and that
the lumber was delivered to the COM
pany for the erection of the mechan-
ical engineering building at Manhat-
tan. While the work was in progress.
the contractors were thrown into
bankruptcy. The lumber bill, it was
claimed, was unpaid and suit was filed
against the bonding company.
The defense today claimed that the
action was not filed within the proper
time limit. Judge Pollock, however,
instructed the jury that the filing of
the suit was within the time limit.
AS a defense the bonding company
maintained that only $500 feet of
lumber furnished by the Star people
had been used in the building at the
time the Blanchards failed. This lum-
amounted to $3.50. while the records
showed that 1926 had been paid on
the lumber bill, which considerably ex-
ceeded the amount of material used.
Judge Pollock in his instructions to
the jury said the bonding company was
liable If the jury found the material
was suitable for the building and was
delivered on the grounds according to
contract. This, Judge Pollock said,
was the protection to which the plain
tiff was entitled under the law. How
ever, it was for the jury to determine
the amount of the claim which should
be allowed, If any.
The defense offered the court five
separate instructions to the jury. When
these were not given in their entirety,
the defense noted an exception to the
instructions.
At o'clock this afternoon the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It
allows the entire claim of $1,915.47 for
material and per cent interest from
August %, 1908, to date, amounting to
$25S.58.
This afternoon a jury is hearing tes-
timony in case brought by H. b.
Sanborn of Amarillo, Tex. against the
Linscott State bank of Holton. Kan,
wherein the plaintiff claims damages
in the amount of $14,500 for the ap-
preparation by officers of the bank of
1--WE Vendors lein notes-Texas real
estate and ages-each valued at
$4,000.
Sanborn claims that the notes were
given as collateral against loan of
So, 900 made to him by the National
bank of Holton. A short time before
the note fell due, the note and col
lateral was sold, endorsed and trans
ferred to the Linscott State bank, a
new institution. Sanborn says he was
ready to pay the note, but alleges that
the officers of the bank took advan-
tage of him and held a pretended sale,
the cashier selling the stock held as
collateral to a brother for $6,2O5. Now
Sanborn is suing the bank for the face
value of the 4-otes, $4,000, with six
per cent interest to date 1t was orig
inally stated that the notes were held
bv the First National bank. This is
a mistake.
A quarter million dollars is involved
in the action brought by Henry j. Mar
tens against John McWilliams for
damages In alleged fake sale of Cali
fornia land, wherein Martens says his
reputation was injured and his ability
to colonize western land was greatly
damaged. Martens claims that in De-
cember. 1908, he was endeavoring to-
find a tract of land in California for
purpose of colonizing the same with
Germans living in Kansas, Oklahoma,
Colorado and other states.
The plaintiff claims that he had in
duced a large number or people TO go
to California and that he went to
Bakersfield Cal, where he entered
into a contract with McWilliams, who
represented that he owned certain
lands and that the location and climate
were desirable for prospective settlers.
Nov. IS, 1908, the defendant entered
into a contract to sell Martens the
land and the plaintiff paid $1,000 on
the purchase price.
Later it developed that McWilliams
was not the owner of the land and
the property was not in his possession
at the time the contract was made.
Martens says however that McW1ll-
Jams had advised him to proceed with
the sale of the land which was largely
disposed of at 500 an acre, Martens
RELYING on the representations of the
defendant and inducing many Germans
living in the middle west to go to Cali
fornia He says that when he began
selling the land it appreciated in value
and was well worth the $lOO an acre
asked for the soil.
1t was when Martens learned of Nc
Williams misdeeds, the petition says,
that the defendant began to appr1se
prospective buyers that the plaintiff
could not sell the land and sought %
iniure and ruin his reputation by max
ing prospective purchasers suspicious
and dissatisfied. Martens says his
failure to keep contracts with the Ger
mans was published In the newspapers
and he was prevented from getting
other settlers to go to California to buy
land. While these difficulties were be-
ing overcome, Martens alleges he was
at great expense and experienced con-
siderable trouble.
Bv reason of his loss of profits from
the sale of lands, the increased expense
of purchasing other land and by rea-
son of false and fraudulent representa-
lions by the defendant, the running of
his business as colonizer. Martens now
asks the court for a judgment against
McWilliams in the sum Of $3.50. 900.
The defendant in his reply denies all
of the allegations set forth except as
to the payment of $1,000 which he
says was later returned. He says no
contract in writing existed and the
| agreement was verbal.
The McWilliams case will probably
he reached bv the court some time
Thursday and promises to be one of
the most interesting cases on the cir
cult court docket at this session