Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-10

1
who made valuable improvements
thereon. Grover G. Gerking, who
was not of age when the bond for a
deed was given, on attaining his ma
jority, contested Smiths right to the
desert land claim, secured a cancella-
tion Of the entry and effected filing
thereon, his father being a witness
at the trial, furnishing the money for
that purpose and thereafter remain
ing with this son in the house on the
premises. This action is based on
the theory that the defendant being
the manager and director of the Col
umbia Southern Irrigation Company
has rendered himself liable in dam
ages because, with knowledge oil
Cooks representation that the cor.
lporation was the owner in fee of the
land described in the complaint, he
4 ratified that statement, although he
knew it was false, and thus became
an active party to the alleged fraud
The plaintiff as witness, was di-
rected by his counsel as follows:
State to the jury what conversation
you hand with Mr.. Cook relative tc
this particular tract OF land here in
controversy" and replied: "He rep
resented to me,-he claimed 1t was
land ready to be decided" In refer
ring to Cooks statements as to the
ability OF the corporation to furnish
water for irrigation, plaintiff testi-
fed as follows: HE represented the
water proposition to be more than
sufficient for our purpose, and three
or four times as much as ever had
been needed" This witness, having
further stated that after seeing Cook
he met the defndant in Portland, was
requested as follows: "State to the
jury what you told him the contract
was, or what the understanding was
State 1t as nearly in the words as
you can" and replied: "I told him
that my understandingof the contract
was that we were to have a bond for
deed for one-half section of the
land and they we're to make the
proofs and paymnt on the other. |
did not understand in what way the
transfer would be made of the other
tracts Of land" @. what did you
tell Mr., Laidlaw with reference to
representations that Mr.. Cook had
made to you about the water supply
and the right of the company to is
sue contracts?" A. II told him that
he represented there was ample wa
ter, or several times as much as
they would need, three or four times,
| think, was the way it was talked"
Q. State as nearly as you can the
exact words that Mr.. Laidlaw used to
you in answer to your statement to
him as to what Mr.. Cook had said
about the water supply, and the right
of the company to transfer water to
you" A. well, | think that was
all right" The attention of the wit
ness being again called to what de-
fendant said to him at that interview,
was directed as follows: Repeat as
much as you can. You must give
the substance of it," and replied.
The substance of the whole business
was that he was to make a bond for
deed for Z and s, and that he pro-
posed to assign the other two half
sections to my son and myself; and
that was the agreement there at that
time"
This testimony is corroborated by
that given by ], o, Gerking, who was
with plaintiff when the land was first
examined, and referring to the repre-
sentations made by the agent of the
corporation respecting the premises,
he said; well, Mr. Cook told us the
land in Z and was decided; that
they could give me deed for that,
or bond for deed, and the land in
9 and 10 they would Just have to give
us an assignment on that; that was
not proved up on"
], II. Cook, as defendants witness,
was asked, in referring to plaintiff
and to the corporation; Did you
ever tell him that the company had
title to these half sections of land in
Z and 81" and answered: "No sir"
Q. What did you tell him about
those sections?" A. 81 told him
there was proof sufficient there so
that whoever decided to prove up on
it could do so, whether the company
or the purchaser" Q. What do
you mean by proof sufficient" A.
We'll desert proofs; that the water
was on the land and Improvement
made sufficient to get title" Q.
THAT is, that the law had been suf-
ficiently complied WITH" A. "Yes
sir" Q. "Was that true?' A. "Yes
sir, that was true"
W. A, Laidlaw, having testified that
he received telegram from plain
tin, respecting the option effected
with Cook, there was received in evil
dence, over objection and exception
of plaintiffs counsel, a letter press