The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-01-25

Win the wallace and Denver owners
for the purchase of said claims; that
after the arrival of defendant in Spo-
kane he was approached by the said
John II. Wourms, to whom he stated
what his business in Spokane was, and
the claims which the defendant was
making with reference to terms and
conditions of said contracts and his
rights Hereunder; that upon defendant
stating to Wourms the fact that he
was in Spokane for the purpose of
securing attorneys, the said Wourms
told the defendant that he, the said
Wourms, and the defendant had al
ways been friends, and that he,
Wourms, could and would represent
him with reference to the rights which
the defendant claimed to have under
| the contracts, and that upon such rep
Iresentation being made to the defen-
dant, the latter thereupon employed
Wourms to act as his attorney in said
matter.
Burke Pays Wourms Retainer.
THAT the defendant then went over
the matter of the claims which he was
making with reference to his rights as
against the original owners of said
lode mining claims, making a full and
complete statement to the said
Wourms with reference to all of the
alleged terms of said contracts; that
the said defendant employed said
| Wourms as his attorney in said mat
ter and paid the said Wourms a re-
tanning fee, and that said Wo9rms ac-
copied said employment and said fee
and undertook to act as defendants
attorney in said matter"
A letter to GraselIi Chemical COM
pany is quoted in the findings writ
ten by Wourms in which he states that
he is attorney for Burke, the date of
the letter being November 10, 1912.
Also a copy of a letter or notice to
| the owners of the Amazon Manhattan
prepared by Wourms as such attorney.
The court says that on or about De"
cember Is Wourms told Burke that he
| had long been employed by the Inter
state Callahan company as attorney;
that the company desired to purchase
the Amazon Manhattan and that he
would have to represent the company
in said purchase and that he could
not further represent Burke. On this
point Judge Flynn says:
Interstate. Callahan Innocent.
Il find that as hereinbefore
set forth, the said Wourms had been
attorney for the Interstate Callahan
company for more than one year prior
to November and December 1912; that
the purpose of the said company in
having the said Wourms as it's attor-
ney negotiate the purchase of said
Amazon Manhattan group of lode
claims rather than do so directly itself
was because it believed it's said attor-
ney could make more advantageous
contract with the, owners of said
claims; that said Interstate company
did not know that Wourms was acting
as attorney for Burke in respect to the
mining properties in question and
that had it known the existence or
such fact, it would not have dealt with
Wourms in the negotiation of said
option to purchase. Neither did Burke
know until December IS, 1912, that
Wourms was acting for the inter-
state Callahan company with respect
to the purchase of said property. Both
Burke and the Interstate Callahan
company were without knowledge Of
the relations existing between
Wourms and the other Neither did
the nterstate-Callahan company
know of any dispute between Burke
and the owners of the property. Said
company had been DESTROYS of MAX
ing some deal for the purchase of said
property since before the time that
Burke himself had obtained his con-
tracts of June II and 10, 1912, on the
property.
THAT during all the time that
Burke had been in the possession OF
the property under these latter con-
tracts. the Interstate Callahan COM
pany had been in the market to pur-
chase said property in case Burke
failed to make the first payment due
on the Ord day of December, 1912.
"At no time during these transac-
tions did the Interstate Callahan
company have any knowledge or no.
tice of the relations existing between
Wourms and the defendant Burke, but
at all times the Interstate Callahan
company supposed that Wourms was
acting as it's counsel in relation to this
property, the proposed purchase
thereof by the Interstate Callahan
company, unembarrased by any con-
flicting professional engagements.
II find that there was no conspiracy
between Wourms and the Interstate
Callahan company to mislead or de-
fraud Burke"
The court finds that the propert!
was purchased by Wourms for the In
terstate Callahan company will
money furnished by the company
that the market value Of the propert!
was not increased by work performed
by Burke; that he was not delayed o.
prevented from working the property
nor from accommodating funds out o
which to make the first payment"