Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-05-16
PRESCOTT ASKS DIRECTED
VERDICT IN ranch CASE
Defendant Rests Case Without Controverting
Evidence Introduced and Jury Is Discharg-
ed; Argue Motions Monday.

, of the defendant and for judgment in
the defendants favor on the grounds
| that the testimony did not show the
plaintiff entitled to relief, did not show
the existence of a partnership, and did
not show the plaintiff entitled to any
share of the profits.
Attorney j. A. McDonough, for the
defense, moved that findings of fact
be made in accordance with the testi-
mony in plaintiffs favor which testi-
mony had not been converted by de-
PENDANT, and also for judgment for
plaintiff for the relief demanded in
the complaint.
Judge PoOrman suggested that In
view of the fact there was no contra
d:ctiOn of the evidence offered in be-
half of the plaintiff and no contra
diction of the documentary evidence
introduced by the defendant, it did not
look as though there were any disputed
questions of fact, that while in view
of the allegations of the answer he had
retained the jury to assist him in an
advisory capacity to determine certain
questions of fact but as no testimony
had been offered to contradict the
plaintiffs testimony, except documents
the existence of which was not dis
puted, he did not see any questions
to be passed upon by the jury excepting
concerning the accounting features.
Gould Not Retain Figures
He said if the law permitted the
jury to take the exhibits into the jury
room it might be of assistance to the
court but he did not believe any human
mind could retain all of these figures
without referring to the exhibits and
the court would have to pass on the
urrnInfInC faofllra Ylfirnafalr He SoJd
some questions of law had been raised
by the defendants motion but the facts
were not controverted so he would dis
pense with the services of the jury.
Only two witnesses had been put on
by the plaintiff during the day. E. f.
Switzer of Brady, of counsel for the
plaintiff. aud the plaintiff himself. Mr..
Switzer testified that he came to Hell
ena Feb. 10, 1913. and asked Prescott
what he would take for his two-thirds
interest in the South Pondera ranch
Prescott told him he did not want to
set a price but would consider an offer;
that he told Prescott the people he
represented would pay a reasonable
market price for the stock, but he could
not tell what would be paid for the
scattered 40-acre tracts owned by the
company. He said he again saw Pres
colt late in February and was told
that A. c. Cough was in the city from
California and he believed Cough would
buy Scott's one-third interest. He said
that later on Cough came out to the
ranch and tool an inventory of the
livestock and that about, March 10 of
the same year Scott was put off the
ranch Switzer testified that in these
negotiations he represented George
Mclean. banker at Brady, and eastern
associates who had expected 10 form
a syndicate TO buy the place.
Advances S25,i65 in Gold
He testified that after Scott had
been evicted from the ranch. Mclean
arranged matters SO the Union Bank
& Trust company of Helena advanced
in gold SO. 165 on April -. 1918. which
was secured by Switzer and J. A. Nc
Donough. who carried the money to
Prescott's office, piled the gold on the
table in front of Prescott and rendered
il as all the money he could claim under
the note given by Scott. but that Pres
colt refused to accept il. After that
it was taken to the American National
bank, where the Scott certificate of
stock had been placed in escrow with
Scotts note. but Cashier Gould said
the note and stock had been taken out
of the bank. The gold was then re-
turned TO the Union bank.
W. H. Scott, plaintiff. was then
called TO the stand and gave further
testimony regarding sheep deals and
the value of securities held by the
ranch company. together with a letter
from Prescott, written March 10, 1917,
asking him To remain with the ranch,
after which the plaintiff rested his
case.