The Glenwood post., 1916-12-23

selling it on the Denver market. The
calf and its mother, "the bob tailed,
frozen-eared red cow,' were purchased
by one of Brunton's friends and re-
turned to Aspen and photographed as
exhibits in the case.
After Brunton got the animals in his
possession he says he became more Ger
tain than ever that not only the white
faced calf in question but also the bob
tailed red COW, belonged to him. The
question as to whether it is customary
for calf to resemble its father more
than its mother, whether the red cow
was dehorned or polled animal and
whether this COW could have been tho
mother of the Hereford calf in question
Were ably put before the jury by the
lawyers in the ease
Bruntou sought to prove that the
COW was his and that the Stapleton
Brothers had placed their brand on the
animal over the Brunton brand.
The case had been tried three sepa-
rate times in the district court in Asp
en- and was brought here by Arunton,
on change of venue for the fourth
hearing. When the case came mp here
the first of the week the parties were
required to pay nearly 5000 in costs
from the previous trials. At the be-
ginning of the litigation the calf was
valued at twenty-five dollars.
Both parties We're very positive in
their testimony, the StapIetons explain
ing how they came by the red COW, and
basing their claim to the calf on the
fact that this calf was mothered and
claimed by the cow, while Brunton pre-
sented photos showing three other
calves being mothered" by the same
cow at the same time. On the other
hand Brunton claimed the COW through
purchase from John Williams who tes.
titled that he put Brunton s brand on
the COW at the time he sold her with
other cattle to Brunton
Bruntou admitted that in the former
trials he had made no claim for th,,
red cow, assuming that she belonged
to Stapletons, and says he only changed
his mind after the animals were re.
turned from Denver an dhe discovered
his brand on the cow with the Staple
ton brand placed over it.
The case was hard fought for Brun.
ton by j. w. Kelley of Denver and q.
w. Darrow of this city, while Kings
bury & Mayes handled the defense for
Stapleton Brothers and won many COM
pliments for their soneralship, the Jury
returning a sealed verdict Thursday
morning in favor of the defendant
Upon announcement of the verdict
plaintif's attorneys gave notice of
their intention to apply for a new trial.
thursday morning Immediately fol-
lowing the disposition of the Brunton
Stapleton case the case of the board Of
county commissioners versus the Ma
tional Surety company as sureties for
c. G. Shelley was begun.
This is an interesting ease wherein,
the county is asking damages in the
amount of 1000 from C. G. Sheeley
and the National Surety company
for the loss of the Lacy bridge across
the Grand river in the high water of
June, 1912. The bridge was constructed
in the years 1901 and the defendants
claim that it was we'll built and that
the loss of the structure is in no way
chargeable to Mr.. Shelley or his bonds.
men. The plaintiffs, however, allege
faulty construction.
Mr. Shelley and the bonding eompe
ny are represented by Davis / VIM
aker Of Denver while TIE plaintiffs IL
tsfests are b>ing looked after By ooas
ty Attorney Taylor Of this city ~
Wheeler 4 Weiser Of Grand Junction
james Brennan and Clarence DiAsH
dsffss, former .esanty sonnissicail4
~ well as tbs present nsnbsfss u ~
board arc witaessss against eAssy ~
the bo.d company. C