Imperial Valley press., 1921-01-07
JUDGE CURTIS
Continued from Page One)

/ Association of America, as "a friend
of the court" He cited instances of
law for more than two yesterday af-
ternoon in his closing arguments. 1t
was one of the most striking argu-
ments ever heard in this city and the
array of authority was unpuestion-
/ able. Just to show how deeply he
| delved into the cast SO volumes of
law were stacked before him and each
used to illustrate some point.
In rendering his decision, Judge
Curtis took up the allegations of the
plaintiff by generalities and in each
instance held that they had not been
proven. He also stated his opinion
that the board of supervisors had
acted in good faith, and that there had
been no dishonesty in any of their ac-
tions, as had the contractors. Judge
Curtis also stated that the report of
the county highway commission upon
which the bond election had been
held was somewhat brief and ramb-
ling, and that the boar dof supervis-
ors had held to the intent of the re-
port and of the vote of the in making
up the routings for the road, and in
the awarding of the contract.
Another theory of the plaintiff
which was exploded was the fact that
in advertising for bids, the board of
supervisors had directed the county
clerk to advertise for bids on single
units, and that while the clerk through
inadvertance had failed to comply
with these instructions, the board un-
doubtedly had the right to waive its
request for bids in single units and
that such action did not render the
award illegal. The court stated that
the board of supervisors were not
bound by the practice of the Medes
and Persians and that after having
once made up their minds, they could
not change them.
After rendering of the decision, in
which Judge Curtis ordered that the
plaintiffs take nothing, and that the
defendants receive their costs" and
''that the petition of the plaintiff for
an injunction will be denied" Dis
trict Attorney Simon asked attorneys
for the plaintiff whether or not they
would waive written finding and was
answered "most certainly not"
At the conclusion of the taking of
testimony yesterday afternoon, at |
torneys for the plaintiff and de-
PENDANTS submitted their arguments
to the court, and upon completion of
the argument for the plaintiff sub
mitted by Mr.. Young, District Attor-
ney Simon requested permission of
the court to reopen the case for the
defense to permit of the introduction
of testimony by Mr.. Jesop, consult
ing engineer for the county high
way commission. Both Attorneys
Seymour and Young protested against
such a procedure and waved exceed
ingly wrathy. The court, however
held that if there was any further
evidence which would tend to throw
light on the matter, he wanted to
hear it, and granted Mr.. Simon's
request.
The plaintiffs attorneys then asked
that the case be continued until to-
morrow morning, which request was
likewise denied by the court. Attor-
neys for the plaintiff urged that they
were not prepared to combat testi-
mony which Mr.. Jessop would give,
and it became necessary for the court
to become very stern, and state that
, the testimony would be taken and that
.
tinue until it was settled. Attorneys
for the plaintiff then insisted that a
recess for the dinner hour be taken,
and this was also denied by the court.
Mr.. JeJssop stated that he was con-
sulting engineer for the county high
way commission, and had been in
such capacity for trifle over year.
He explained regarding the various
sets of specifications which had been
offered by the plaintiffs to prove
their contention that there were sets
of specifications which were totally
different, and some of which had been
changed. His testimony apparently
| cleared the mind Of the court of some
confusion regarding these various
sets of specifications, and cross eX-
animation by the plaintiffs attorneys
failed to entangle Mr.. Jessop in the
meshes Of any confusion or misunder-
standing and misapprehension.
Mr.. Jessop was recalled to the
stand by attorneys for the plaintif1
as witness for the plaintiff ant
further questioning failed to elicit
any testimony in support of theil
contention that bids had been on va
rious specifications.