Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-12-13
RUMNEY HEIRS
OCETVERDICT
FOR DAMAGES
Sealed Verdict to Be Opened
Today; Amount
Uncertain.

A verdict for the Rumney heirs IN
their suit for damages against II. j.
| Skinner will be returned when a sealed
verdict is opened in Judge II. h. EW-
ing's department of the district court
this morning at $50, it was under
stood Tuesday night after the jury had
arrived at a verdict shortly after y
o'clock. The amount Of damages al
lowed was not learned. The case went
to the jury about 4 o'clock, following
pleadings by counsel.
The Jurors in the case are W. NJ.
Moore, foreman; Antoine Maurer, Il.
G, Kinsey, Henry Vogel, j. M. Reeves,
John Denham, G. w. Dickinson, W. Il.
Wilcoxson, Claude S. Bailey, Merit
A. Penwell, Michael DALEY and Her
bert Gallaher.
The Rumneys are suing Mr.. Skinner
for $65 900 damages and $25,O0O punt
tive damages. They allege that the
Rumney ranch of 1892 acres was deed
ed over to the Rumney Ranch company
in November. 1915, when they thought
they were transferring only their prop
arty rights to John Rumney. one OF
the brothers. so he could act as the
business representative of the family.
Skinner Had Half interest
At that time the farm was mortgaged
for $50, 900. Mr.. Skinner held a half
interest in the property under the
terms of his agreement with the Rum
ney Ranch company, which sold out
to C. w. Cleveland in the spring of
1919. In the fall of that year, Cleye-
land turned the place back, according
to their testimony. The complaint
says the Rumneys put especial faith in
Mr.. Skinner because of his connection
with the Christian Science church. OF
which they were members.
The jury was instructed by Judge
Ewing to decide if the Rumneys had
been defrauded by Mr.. Skinner, and if
so to what extent. The jury may find
punitive damages against him to the
extent of $4,000, the amount asked
by the plaintiffs. The orders state
that the only verdict possible for the
plaintiffs is a money verdict.
If the jurors decide that the Rum
neys we're not damaged by the transfer
of the ranch to the Rumney Ranch
company and the deed to the place was
rot obtained by fraud, a verdict for the
defendant should be returned, the or
ders point out.
Being members Of the same church
does not as Il matter of law create a
relationship to entitle the plaintiffs IL
repose especial confidence in the de-
PENDANT, or from exercising reasonable
care and caution in signing the paper
claimed to have been presented to them
by the defendant for their signatures,
the instructions read, adding that the
plaintiffs do not claim to have known
the defendant prior to a month before
the signing of the deed to the Rumney
Ranch company.
Lawyers Take Opposite Views
Fletcher Maddox, defense attorney,
told the jury that in his opinion the
plaintiffs had presented nothing but a
shadow in the case. He termed the
complaint as being full of sound and
fury that means nothing. He said he
had never seen a simmer case in over
80 years of law practice.
Harry II. Austin of Big Timber,
plaintiff attorney, denounced Mr.. Skin
nec in harsh terms for his alleged TAX
ing advantage of the lack of business
experience Of Mrs. Rumney and her
five children, following the death of
Benjamin Rumney, Sr. George A.
Judson told the jury the sale of the
Rumney Ranch company to Mr.. Cleve-
land was a fraud from the beginning.