Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-10-30
$4,000 VERDICT
AGAINST JAMESON
JURY IN MoRy ~ sANk c.
FINDS WAT % NAM l,Asla
FOR : Aos loAMA
HOLDS -soN's LETTER
WAS % INTENT 70 oGcErs8l 4
Morrssen Bank Sued Fer oeeaoD 60.
cause 81 ovsrioans Mode @ csaGael
Iowa Granite Company On Rssssn.
msndatlen Of Prssidsnt 81 Waserlsa
Bank,

|
Waterloo. Oct so.-The Jury q ~
FarmerS State Bank Of Morrison ~.
w. r. Jameson. os Waterloo, returned
a verdict this morning awarding the
bank $4,000 dana ges. The suit waa
for $4,000 and was based on . Iettss
written by the Waterloo man at the
time 40 was president Of the CitisenaY
Savings Bank Of this city. The Nor.
rison bank was led to believe that Z. ~
Boggs and tho Central Iowa Granite
Company which failed later owing the
Morrison bank sozno $4,000 wAs
worthy Of credit thru tho Jameson let.
ter. When the failure nf tho company
came It involved tho bank 20 deeply
that tho stockholders lost heavily. The
amount awarded In this case y the
largest ever made In a damage case In
the Blackhawk district court.
instructions 70 jury.
In Judge MullAn's instructions 60 -
jury the court stated there were four
essential points that must bo proven
by the plaintiff before the plaintiff Wa,
! entitled to recovery.
First-That the Representations made
In the letter written by Jameson were
false when made
Second-That defendant knevr <he,n
to be false.
Third-That they wero made With
the intent to deceive.
| Four.h-That the Morrison hank ana
It's cashier had NO knowledge Of ~
falsity Of the statements relaunr to
the financial response bility of the Cen.
trail Iowa Granite Company and Il. a
Boggs: and that they believed them
| to be- true and relied and acted unon
the statements.
Judge MullAn stated that n the fury
found that the bank. or its cashier, "a
lied upon the REPRESENTATIONS unaaa n
the letter in making loans or d.scount-5
Ing notes. tho plaant1n was entitled g
recovery IA sum not to exceed The
amount sued 1or In tho nctitlOn. TAepn
had becn considerable epccula t1on rela.
tive to the matter of the amounf ~
| which the dOfendal,e cOtlA n he2A
provided tho jury found Ia favor of -
plaintiff. The courts lnstruction GOV.
cred this point thoroughly A lt dad III
others involved. and stated that II tho
Jury found that the plaintaR bank or
| its cashier had violated the law rela.
tive To loaning moro money TO ono r,er.
SON thnn the law permitted. It could
not be held as q bar to the obli9atAon
Of defendant.
Benefits Do MOI ejoura
Judge Mullan stated to tho Jury that
1t was not necessary to nroys that the
letter was tho solo cause for tho loan
Ing Of tho money. but II the fury found
that the representations made in the
letter were a material inducement for
to recover, The court further stated
that 1t was not essential that the de-
fendant obtained or expected to OBJ
tain any benefits. az a result of the
letter, in determining tho liability Of
defendant.
Relative to the amendment 60 the
original petition. In which was at
forth the matter OF continuing sfpect.
tho court instructed tho Jury that II
they found that Jameson learned of
tho insolvency Of the granite company
and Boggs within q reasonable timx
ac,er writing the letter. It wa. IA
duty to SO advice the Main.t, ana ra-
CAN the statements made in h,s letter.
Aa further stated that the action had
been based upon fraud aud deceit
and that fraud may be proved by orr
cumsta ntial evidence,
CLOSING Arour,snts,
Tho pleas were eloquent, forcefui
and convincing on both sides, =. J,
Williamson, the first speaker sqF the
plaintiff, charged that Jameson did not
dare to go on the stand and efaos the
music" of q cross-examination NfIN
did not come here peyuonaliy,r sAtd the
attorney, "and tell you men thsa he
believed the statansats in tAe leeser
were true when he made them He
did not take the stand in his oypa bs.
half. tho present in the copra roprn
during the trial"
| In reply to this stataurant 7. w. Ar.
nuchas aecsaleo tnae - waA nos neces-