Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-01-26

(This answer evidently astounded hi
attoney and caused this startled ejacu
lation, however the witness continued)
A, didn't know anything of it
We didn't I know-we could get the paper
or anything ! also wired Mr.. Barne
when ! nad a chance to get the papers
wired Barnes could get it, and i
he wanted to 90 ahead on the iron dea
to let me know. That was after / ha,
written this letter asking for the map
ot the copper company
Enough Of Mr.. Spencer. Can any
/ fair minded man say Spencer was il
anyway connected with me in this iror
deal! Had there ever been partner
ship or any kind of agreement. Spencer
shows that he terminated it aimseli
about two wears before the iron dea
was consunmated, and as he himself
says "The iron property was not
known at the time, - Can any oe be.
liere that or any sane man would
agree to put up all the expense Of a
deal and give another lerson half the
profits for forwarding blueprint that
he could have procured by writing f0r
II at the expense of two.cent stamp
Does Spenccr's testimony show he was
entitled tie anything from me in tlis
deal! An attempt was also made to
show that had put my property in my
wife S name to shield myself, and, sew
eral tOundatiOnIcSs stories have been
circulated as to that. My testimony on
file in the case shows that ! described
property belonging to me and in my
name, outside Of this property in Sa
lem, and including the $4,000 due me
trun Hartman, Of the value Of 100000.
why should put this property out Of
my hands or try to cover il up when 4
left $4,000 worth Of other property in
California where this Judgment was pro-
cured, subject to attachment!
just one other suggestive thing an.
pears in this case, ,which shows what
cntidcncc Mr. Spencer's attorneys had
in him When the attachment proceed.
lngs were begun here ] was
served with notice by Spencer S attor-
neys that they were, under their agree.
ment with Spencer, entitled to 50 per
cent Of. the judgment, and for me to
pay that proportion not to Spencer,
but to them. They evidently feared TO
trust their own client to do the fair
thing with them, and they must have
thmght his case desperate to exact
more than half as their fee.
Judge Galloway, who tried the case.
among other things, made the following
findings IN the suit Of Grace D, Barnes
against William Esch, A. b. Spencer
and l., $, Barnes;
That through inadveltauce and mis-.
take ON the part Of persons selling
sald land and of the defendant, l.. $.
Barnes, and the peBUs preparing the
aud through no fault on
the part of the PLAINTIFF, the title to
all Of said property was taken in the
name Of the said l., $. Barnes as owner
thereof.
That it was distinctly understood and
agreed between the Plaintiff and her
sald husband, l., $. Barnes, and the pcr.
sons selling sald property, at the time
the PLAINTIFF paid said purchase price
as aforesaid that said lands hereinbc.
iore described, and purchased with the
plalnlitt + sad mWcy should be the
property bf' the plaintiff and conveyed
to her
Tae CONT finds that the defendant
spencer did recover Judgment in tae
superior court for Los Angeles county.
California, in the sum Of s6g,33D and
that the same was the basis of the ac.
tlon brought by him against the defend.
ant, L. $, Barnes in, department No. /
q. this court nut the court finds from
the evidence in this cause that the de.
lendant, A. 3. Spencer. was never n
partncr of the defendant, Lagene $.
Barnes, aud never had any interest In
the sale of the mining properties con.
Quoted By defendant Barnes, aud that
no partnership ever existed between
said defendants.
the court further finds that thc said
defendant Barnes aud the defendant
Spencer dhl not as partners or other.
wise sell any mining claims whereby
tneN made profit amounting TO Sl3S,.
600 or any other amount of money, ana
also finds that the defendant. Laqcne
5. Barnes never received or converted
to his own usc any OF the money belong.
ing to the defendant A. h. spencer.
Vhc court further finds that the de.
tendlnt LaReuc s. Barnes, did not at
amy time have any moneys In his pos.
session belonging to the defendant, A.
D, Spencer, and he did not make any
deposits of any money IN any bank to
the credit Of his wife, plaintiff in said
suit with the intention Of cheating or
dctrouding the defendant Spencer, and
the court further finds that the moneys
of the plaintiff herein which were in.
vested in said real property were her
absolute property and that the defend.
ant, a, D. spencer never had any inter.
est IN any Of said moneys.
The court finds that said real prop.
criy described in the complaint and in
these findings was not purchased with
mmcN belonging to any Partnership
and tnat the defendant, A. u. spencer