Omaha daily bee., 1912-03-28
Kountze Brothers Declares Ross
Agreed to Do More Than Able.
REPLY IN KIND FROM ROSS
His Attorney Insists Full Payment
Was Not to Be Made.
WHY STOCK SALE FELL THROUGH
j. III. Mel nron Testifies He Owns
Quarter o. stock, and Being In
Employ of Doherty Company
Blocks KountEe Deal.
fFrom a staff Correspondent.)

(From a Staff Correspondent
LINCOLN, Neb., March G.-(SpeciaL)-
Charles Ross was on the stand today IN
his own behalf in the hearing OF the pro-
test made by Kountze brothers against
his water power filing on the Platte and
Elkhorn rivers. The whole tendency oil
his testimony WAS to show good faitn
on his part in making the filing, follow
ing ii up with work to protect his rights
and efforts to finance the project, ana
also TO show bad faith on the part Of
representatives of Kountze brothers in
making their filing through William Coad
end also in the negotiations TO buy the
rights OF Ross and his associates.
The cross-examination OF Ross by 1.
n. Congdon. attorney for Nountze broth
ers, was directed to anattempt TO show
that not enough work had been done on
The project to keep 1t alive, and also that
in the negotiations for the sale of the
rights OF himself and associates he had
contracted to deliver a percentage of the
stock OF his company which he could not
deliver when the time came to make good
on the option contract.
Ross Effort as Promoter.
on direct examination Ross detailed
how when he made his filing he gave
some stock in his company to Craig and
the heirs Of Andrew Rosewater to clear
any cloud which their previous filings
might have cast on his rights and also
the details Of his plan. He testified that
in April, f9ll, he went to f. II. Davis
OF the First National bank and gave him
figures showing the plant was capable
OF earning $4,000 net per year and on
that basis was capitalized at 100000. OF
which Davis was to receive 10 per cent
for floating the company.
The dealings with the Farwell Trust
company Of Chicago and others were de-
tailed and then the entrance Of kountze
brothers through the medium of LozierS
The details of the negotiations with
Lozier were recIted substantially as by
Lozier himself on the day before, the
principal point of difference belg that --r.
Cougdoil sought to show by the witness
that he was not able TO deliver the s. per
cent of the stock In his company as pro-
vided In the option contract signed by
Ross and Losier. Ross maintained that
he could. while the Kountze interests In
sistedhe could not and that was the rea-
son the money was not paid on the op-
tion. Ross also testified that he had as
surances he could finance his project II
the title to his water rights weer off
clally cleared.
Money Spent ON Project.
Mr.. Ross testified he and his associates
had expended $500 so far on. the project,
OF which $500 had been paid in cash and
the remained in stock of the company.
Mr.. Congdon on cross-examination asked
how much OF this amount had been paid
for actual construction work, seeking TO
exclude money paid for engineering ex-
penses from being considered as prose
cutlon Of work" as provided by law to
protect the filing. Mr.. Ross testified
that 8. $50 had been expended on grading
work and that while most Of the time
only one team had been working. the
work had progressed all the time when
weather conditions would permit
The questions asked by Mn Ross attor-
ney concerning the negotathons with f.
II. Davis were so pointed intending to
show the connection of Mr.. Davis with
the Kountzes as a showing Of bad faith
and to substantiate HIS claim that the
Kountzes were SO impressed with the
value Of the proposition that they wanted
fContinued on Second Page)