The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-01-25
JUDGE FLYNN FINDS INTERESTING FACTS
IN DECIDING AMAzON-MANHATTAN CASE
WELL KNOWN DUAL POSITION WHICH THE
COURT DESCRIBES AS DOUBLE DEALiNe-THE DECISION
ouIers TITLE OF INrE RsTATE. CALLAHAN CO.

RsTATE. CALLAHAN CO.
0 The Miner announced several weeks
ago that Judge John M. Flynn, of the
eighth judicial district, had rendered
an oral decision against Patrick Burke
in his fight for possession of the Anna
zon- Manhattan group of claims on
Beaver creek. The case was the out
growth of an option held on the prop
erty first by Patrick Burke and Will
liam T. Tracy, of Galesburg, ILL.,, and
subsequently by Burke after the
withdrawal of Tracy. Upon his fall
ure to make the first payment due
on December 3, 1912, the owners on
December 4 declared his option for
feited and demanded possession of the
property, which Burke refused which
led to the suit which has just been de-
cided in favor of the owners. The
title of the case as 1t appeared of
record is H. M. Davenport, M, j. Flohr
IC. w. Belts, administrator of the
N.
Chas. Asp, William Clark, Thomas
Keely, Ben Stanley Revett and John
H, Wourms, plaintiffs, vs.. Patrick
Burke, defendant, VS.. Consolidated In \
terstate- Callahan Mining company,
cross defendant
An Interesting Decision.
Last week Judge Flynn submitted
his written decision embodying his.
finding of facts and conclusions OF
law and Judgment against Burke was
entered accordingly. Regarding the
claim by Burke that his contract was
different from that agreed upon orally,
Judge Flynn says:
"The court finds that at all times
after the meeting of the defendant
Burke with the plaintiff Belts, Daven-
port and Flohr at the Black Horse Of
flee in Wallace in May, 1872 at which
the terms of the said proposed con-
tract were discussed between the per-
sons present at the meeting and ten
tatiVely agreed upon Burke knew the
terms of the contract that the said
Burke read the contract which had
been prepared for the signatures of
the Wallace owners and that said con-
| tract as read by defendant Burke was
! the same as the contracts subse-
quently by the defendant Burke with
both the Wallace and Denver owners;
that the defendant Burke had, as here
in found, discussed said contract with
the Wallace owners and with Clark
and Keely; that Burke knew that said
written contract differed from the
Tracy contract with respect to the
matter of stopping ore on previous work.
ings; that the defendant Burke signed
four copies of said contract and also
the escrow agreement in the First Ma
tional bank, in all of which papers the
time of payments was prominently
set forth, and that at the time of sign
ling said contracts and delivering deeds
thereunder the defendant Burke knew
that the first payment was due on the
Sd day of December, 1912; that there
was no oral contract between the par
| Ties OIHeE IMAM lHb dSlSSlilSllL III
the Black Horse office in Wallace be-
tween the Wallace owners and Burke.
and that the written contracts subse-
quently signed as herein set forth,
were in accordance with the terms OF
said proposed contract as orally dis
cussed at said meeting; that the plain
tiff Belts did not represent to Burke,
nor did Burke believe, that any alleged
oral contract claimed by Burke had
been reduced to writing embodying the
terms and conditions specified in the
Burke Tracy contract of September IA.
| 1911.
THAT in the various negotiations
prior to the making of the written con-
tracts, and in the signing and execu-
tion of said written contracts, the de-
fendant Burke was not deceived or
mislead in any manner by any of the
owners of the said property, but sign
ed and entered into said contracts
with full knowledge of their contents"
Enter John H. Wourms.
Reviewing in much detail the facts
brought out in the trial, the findings
record that on December 4, the day
following the forfeiture of the contract
by Burke, the owners of the Amazon
Manhattan entered into a contract
with John H. Wourms for the purchase
Of the property for 100000, Of which
| 10 per cent was paid down and the
balance to be paid in installments, the
last payment being due on June 3,
1914. The court found that the con-
tract with Wourms was in reality with
the Consolidated Callahan
Mining company, and that possession
OF the property was taken by that
company that Wourms was and for
year or more had been attorney for
the Interstate Callahan company and
was regularly retained counsel at the
time of entering into the contract for
the purchase of the property, and had
no interest in the contracts. On De-
cenber 16, 1912, plaintiff Wourms
made demand upon Burke for posses
sion of the property, which demand
was refused. Continuing Judge Flynn
says: