Weekly journal-miner., 1917-01-24
RUSSIANS SUE HASSAYAMPA
 COMPANY
STORY OF WHY COLON 1STS QUIT AT JEROME JUNCTION IS TOLD IN COMPLAINT.
(From Thursdays Daily.}

|
 suit filed by them in the Superior court yesterday against the Hassay- ampa Alfalfa Farms Company. The
 other side of the story, which doubt
 less will prove just as interesting, no
 doubt will be set forth in the answer
 which the company will file.
 | In all there are 20 plaintiffs, which
 IS quite an array, particularly so when their names are taken into considcra-
 ton. This is the way their cogno-
 mems look on the mplaint-Vacili Pivovarof, Ereney Kurbatoff, Alexey Evseof, Moses Treguboff, Ivan Kob-
 ziff. lgnatz Schubin, Pavlo Novikoff, | AlcXey Pivovaroff, Ivan Pivovaroff,
 Vacili Kotoff. Petro Rudmatkin. Yon
 Kashirski, Vacili Kashirski, Petro | Evseof, Fin Evseoff, Stephan Evse-
 off, Egor Popof, Jim Popoff and Ivan
 Kashirski.
 The complaint is voluminous, but
 summarized it charges that the com
 pany failed to live up to its contract
 and therefore the plaintiffs, whom, it seems arc now residents of Maricopa
 county, have been damaged in various
 and sundry ways to the extent of a
 great many thousand dollars. On or
 about the 10th of November, 1915, a contract was entered into between the company and the Russians which provided for the doing of certain things by both parties, among them being the following: The sale to the
 plaintiffs of 1000 acres of land at Jc-
 rome Junction at an agreed price of Sl00 an acre to be paid for on basis
 of half the product of the land. First,
 however, the land was leased to the plaintiffs on a share basis for three
 years, the company to receive one. fifth of the product for two years and
 one-fourth for the third year. The company agreed to furnish free oi
 charge sufficient lumber for the build ing of houses and sheds for the col
 oniSts, sufficient rye hay to feed their
 stock and the use of machinery to till
 the land, all of which was to be paid
 for like the land, except the hay The company further agreed to complete
 it's irrigation system consisting of
 main canal, laterals and ditches in
 CT to irrigate their crops ,and also to
 pay the transportation charges of the
 colonists and their families and live stock from National City, near San
 Diego, to Jerome Junction and to take
 promissory notes and chattel mort gage on the stock as security for the money thus advanced. There was also leased to the colonists a tract of
 1000 acres of land, sown to alfalfa, the rental for which was a third of the crop therefrom for two years and half of the crop for the third year. These items give in brief the contract entered into, copy of which is set forth in full in the complaint
 Notwithstanding the agreement to extend the irrigation system, the col onists allege, the company failed to complete or extend a proper system over the lands in 1916 until the date had passed when the water would be l of any use or value in irrigating the | lands; that in the meantime relying 1 upon the promise given them they ex- pended a vast amount of work, labor | and money in blowing, breaking up, | cultivating and preparing the land for ! the planting of crops and had pro ! cecded to plant crops on the land thus { prepared as follows: Four hundred . acres in wheat, 70 acres in oats, Is . acres in beans and also plowed and . narrowed 600 acres. The crops, it IS said, failed and the labor was lost, the l main canal was not completed until 1 June 7, l9l6, date too late to be of use, and the laterals and ditches were not completed in 1916 and the crops therefore dried up, became stunted and were rendered wholly worthless for lack of water: that on account of the leaky condition of the headgate of the. main canal the amount of wat CT received was wholly insufficient to irrigate the lands, even though it had been received in time and though proper laterals had been provided; that the 400 acres of wheat planted, would, if water had been furnished ; according to contract produced 2X 1 tons of wheat-hay per acre of the value of Sl4 ton, the 70 acres of oats 21l tons of oat-hay per acre of the value of Sl4 ton, the Is acres of beans l,600 pounds to an acre of the value of eight cents pound, and the 600 acres plowed and narrowed at an expense of s an acre would have netted on the profit sharing basis agreed upon the sum of Sl4,OO0 Judg- ( ment therefore is asked as follows: $
 l. For the value of IFS tons of oat- { hay, at S1+ per ton, amounting to s. I 450, less one-ffth thereof, or S4o0, 10 defendant as provided in said 8 contract, leaving a net balance due of ( sl,o6O t
 2 For the value of 1000 tons of C wheat hay, at Sl4 per ton amounting g