Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1910-10-05
Interesting Cases

last week.
The case of Bell VS.. Wall, a suit
t,r breach Of contract, was bril-
r.r, battle between Messrs. Nc
rormick and Whiting for the
.I;ntiiT. and MesSrs. Moore and
Retzhoovcr for the defense.
The facts of the case were sub
stan,islly as follows:
In the spring of this year A. ID.
Uardesty. acting as sagent for G. f.
Wal. the bigstock dealer of Charles
Town. bought twenty head of cattle
from Richard Bell at price Of 81
cents per pound, and five head at 9
cents per pound, delivery to be
made between July Is and 20.
\ written contract TO that effect
was given, it being specified that
the cattle should be well grazed. :"
The plaintiff offered to deliver
the cattle between the dates mem
,ioped. but the defendant refused
10 accept them, on the ground that
they had not been well grazed and
were not in condition to market.
The plaintiff then gave notice
that If the cattle we're not taken,
lie would proceed to sell them at
public auction for the defendants S
account and hold him responsible
for the difference in price between
that received and that agreed upon
in the contract.
The cattle were sold and brought
less than the contract price, and Bell
at once intituted suit for 515.7I.
The jury awarded a verdict for
4S4.17.
The entire case hinged upon the
construction of the words, well
grazed." and the jury evidently
took into consideration the fact
that Bell had turned the cattle into
hay field when the grass in his
clover field began to get short, and
that the defendant had knowledge
Of the character Of grass on the
farm when the contract was made,
as the cattle were bought in the
field.
Mr.. Wall who was sued as prin-
cipal, had never seen the cattle
until about ten days before the time
set for taking them, his agent, Mr..
lIardesty, havingmadet the contract.
The case was intensely interest
ing in its entirety, and the court
room was well filled during its
hearing.
The case of Clapp VS.. Warthen
was dismissed, the parties having
arrived at an amicable compromise
The case of Ford VS.. Warthen
brought on another superb legal
battle between Messrs. Mccormick
and Moore, and the former was
victorious.
The facts of this case were about
as follows:
Mr.. Ford, who is the we'll known
Front Royal real estate agent, was
one of the several agents who were
trying to find purchasers for the
Rosemont estate after it was pur-
chased by Mr.. Warthen. He in
troduced Rev. William II. Smith,
OF Winchester, to Mr.. Warthen as
prospective purchaser of what is
known as the Fries part of Rose
mont. MIR. Smith did not pur-
chase that day. Mr.. Warthen
then agreed to sell the Fries land
to Mr.. Townsend Burwell. At
tins juncture, Mr.. III. +. Byrd
asked MIR. Harry Warden to secure
the Fries land for him and an
associate (the name of the latter
being withheld) at price of
$4,000. Mr.. Warthen informed
Mr.. Warden that he had agreed
to sell to Mr.. Burwell. Then
Warden said that if he could secure
arelease from the Burwell trade, he
could get a higher price for the
FRIES land (the Burwell price being
only S22, ,000), a deal for the Rose
mont house, grove and swimming
pool could be closed with some
people from New Orleans (who had
Just previously made an offer for
that part of the estate, which offer
mad been refused, as it would leave
Mr. Warthen without the main
house), and then Mr.. Warden and
rather (Mr. Jacob Warden) would
UaKe the remainder of the estate,
comprising the land east and west
OF the Rosemont mansion. Acting
under this belief, Mr.. Warthen
secured a release from Mr.. Burwell
Duf tho Me-. ALL