Show THE PLAINTIFF EE8T I DEVELOPMENTS IX THE CASE OF SMITH VS JONES Mrs Smith Gives Her Testimony Motion For a NonSuit Overruled Defendants Statement Provo April 25The entire time in the district court today was occupied in the now noted case of Smith vs Jones et al and considerable racy matter was brought forth The evidence evi-dence for the plaintiff is all in but it will yet require a day or two to complete com-plete the case R D Jones was the first witness called but he did not state anything different from yesterday Judge Saxey was recalled and told of a meeting of the creditors of the Provo City Lumber company in which it was determined to sell the lumber yard and that Mrs Todd purchased it M L Todd was the next witness called He stated that he had lived in Provo in 1892 and was associated with the Provo City Lumber company When that company failed I was managing man-aging its affairs and after the assignment assign-ment Mr Jones and myself purchased the Proyo City Lumber companys yards from the assignee Mr Saxey We represented together about 33100 of claims against this company It was about equally divided The claims I represented were in favor of the Midway Mid-way Lumber company and Mr Jones represnted the Ainslie Lumber com pany paper In the hands or Yo ± 1 Smith Our understanding was that I would become personally responsible for the Midway Lumber company claims and Mr Jones was to become personally responsible for the Smith paper These transactions occurred about November 1892 We got money enough out of this transaction to pay this paper I remember on one occasion oc-casion of going to Mr Jones office in Salt Lake I met Mrs Smith coming out of Jones office When I went inTones in-Tones said Billy wants his money but he wont get It I have got him on the hip Crossexamined by Mr KingI came from Denver to Provo Before coming to Denver I lived in Ealy Neb I atone at-one time worked for the North Platt Lumber company In Denver I was in the lumlber business for myself It burned down and the company went into liquidation I then came to Provo and went into the lumber business and this company failed and then my wife Mrs H C Todd bought up the main assetsWhat What were these assets worth then S thenAbout About 5000 Do you remember having testified in the case of W H King et al vs M L Todd Yes sir Did you not swear then that all of these assets were not worth 1500 I dont think so Here Mr King showed witness his answer in the above named suit which witness had verified and the amount there stated was 1500 Now who bought in this companys assets Mrs H C Todd Did you state on your direct examination exam-ination that Mrs Todd and Elmer B Jones purchased it Yes And did not you swear in the case lof W H King et al vs Todd et al that Mrs H C Todd purchased it with her own money Yes I believe so Well you lied then didnt you if what you now say is true Well I would like to explain I hardly think I lied It was simply a verbal understanding between us that she was < o buy it in her name and Mr I Jones would take half of it I But didnt you testify some time after thiS purchase that your wife purdhased it with her own money and had only given a few shares away in order to form a company and get aboard a-board of directors Yes I believe so Well how is it that you now say Mr Jones owned half of it Oh it was a verbal understanding between us Well did Mr Jones get enough out of this to pay his claims After a little more searching examination exami-nation it was shown that Mr Jones got about 100 and this mostly for legal services Witness stated he was now living at Vancouver Had been associated asso-ciated with the Vancouver Lumber company and that had failed At this point the court stated that there was nothing in this witness testimony to show that Mr Jones was liable for the Ainslie paper with which witness stated this lumber company was purchased and the entire testimony of witness was stricken out and witness much to his relief left the stand Mrs Anna C Smith was the next witness wit-ness called and she testified as follows I am the wife of plaintiff and now live in Salt Lake I have assisted my husband in his business Have attended to his books some done some collecting collect-ing and seeing to his finances I delivered de-livered some collections to the National Bank of Commerce in August 1892 Mr R D Jones was with me The amount was 336693 I found neither Mr Elmer El-mer B Jones nor Mr Greene there when I first went to the bank Later Mr Jones returned and after i ome conversation con-versation I turned the paer over to him to hand it to Mr Greene for collection col-lection I did not then get a receipt for this paper but a few days later it was sent up from the bank Here witness identified the paper she left for collection Witness claimed to have a receipt from Mr Greene for some paper By Judge HendersonHow do you know Mr Greene wrote the receipt Well I supposed he did Did you ever see him write No sir Well how do you know he wrote rl It S 4rehl I received it through the mail Thlp testimony was objected to by counsel for defense on the ground that it was not the best evidence The objection ob-jection was overruled It appeared that the receipt was lost as was several other supposed receipts referred to during the trial and those not lost had always been returned to some of the defendants de-fendants I Where did Mr Smith get the paper known as the Ainslie Lumber company com-pany paper He got it from that company Did Mr Smith get this himself from the company No sir I got it myself at Portland I went to Portland and made a settlement settle-ment of my husbands account and he got this paper in payment Did you take any of this paper with you from Salt Lake to Portland Yes sir some that my husband got from Utah dealers This paper was paid me in the Ainslie office at Portland Port-land by I believe Mr Jones or else Mr Wall I returned home July 5 from Portland How Is it that some of this paper S is dated after July 5 when you say you brought this home with you S Oh this paper was often dated ahead to accommodate the dealers and I suppose this was the case in this instance in-stance S Crossexamined by Judge Henderson When did you go to Portland Late in June What did you go for Not specially to settle The Ainslie company was in a bad condition wasnt it I dont know Did you bring this piece pf paper home with you showing her draft Yes sir S You got home on the 5th Yes sir Well this draft is dated on July 7 and accepted the same day Yes SWell S-Well was not that the day the Ainslie company went into the hands of a trustee Yes S Please explain how this draft is dated on the day the Ainslie company failed and was also accepted on the same day Oh I suppose it is just a happen so Well was it customary for you to draw a draft and date it ten or twenty days ahead and then go and get the draft accepted before that day I dont known that it was Well you took this paper in absolute payment of your husbands account Yes S And accepted the paper in full payment pay-ment before it was accepted by the drawee 7 Yes Is that the way you do business Oh that was my risk I Witness went on to say that some of this paper she brought herself to Provo and turned it bver to the Bank of Commerce for collection Of this 1 785 was on Morrison Merrill Co of Salt Lake and was good paper At the same time she brought down about I 300 on Provo parties Her object was to have it registered and ready for collection col-lection because the Provo bank was small was soliciting business and she thought it would be attended to more promptly than by one of the large banks in Salt Lake Witness was shown some letters written by her toE to-E B Jones in which she referred to I certain collections which I he said belonged be-longed to R D Jones On redirect examination witness stated sta-ted that the Nebraska transaction referred re-ferred to in her letters was one in which Mr Smith had no interest It was business of R D Jones On cross examination Judge Hender I son inadvertantly referred to the witness wit-ness as Mrs Jones To this she demurred de-murred saying Smith is bad enougn but Jones Is one degree worse Which Jones do you refer to asked Judge Henderson R D Jones I believe myself it is a mixed question ques-tion replied irs Smith The only additional point brought out was that witness had taken to Portland several bank drafts on parties in Salt Lake and they were signed by the AInslee company The minutes of ameeting of the directors di-rectors of the Bankof Commerce were Introduced showing the election of Elmer I El-mer B Jones as a director of the bank in 1892 This closed the evidence for plaintiff I and Judge Henderson moved on the part of the bank to dismiss the action The motion was denied In order to accomnodate two witnesses wit-nesses for the defense they were allowed al-lowed to testify before the opening statement for the defense was made S W Morris of Salt Lake was called and testified that he for his company accepted one of the drafts in question on July 7th the date it was drawn and It had not been presented before He was sure it wos accepted on the 7th Sometimes drafts were dated ahead to correspond to the time of the arrival of the car but his firm did not accept ahead of the time due Mr McConnahaugh of Salt Lake identified one of the drafts in question and stated he had accepted ac-cepted it for his company Had no arrangements with the Ains lie company by which we were to accept ac-cept drafts before the time of its date But we usually did not accept before receiving the carAt car-At this point Mr King asked for a nonsuit in behalf of Mr Jones The motion was denied The opening statement for defendant Jones was next made by Mr King In i i brief he said it would be shown that Mr Jones at the time this question I arose was an attorneyatlaw at Provo and that in July 1892 plaintiff and RII D Jones came into Mr Elmer B Jones office and left a paper with Mr Jones for collection The evidence will show that these parties owned this paper jointly and that these parties wanted it collected and some other paper also which they would soon have but was not then due This paper pa-per they wanted collected but not in their name but in the name of the Shasta Lumber company and it was so registered on the bank books There was some talk of attaching on some of this first paper left and in pursuance to this talk papers were made out by S K King Later Mr E B Jones went to Salt Lake and there I met Mr Smith when the latter told him that he had about from 10000 to 13000 in paper he wanted collected and he wanted him to attend to it all to the exclusion of everything else if necessary That there might be suits as the result of every piece of paper and that he wanted it attended to care fully and to avoid all trouble possible Further that Mr Smith wanted Mr Jones to attend to all his business he might have during the time he would I lbe collecting the mopey That plain tiff wanted him to be ready at any I time to to go Portland Omaha or any place else he might desire That from I July 1892 until October of the same I I year Mr Jones had to go from Provo to Salt Lake two or three times nearly every week and that at some times he had to remain there a week at a time It will be shown that Mr Jones had to make one trip to Omaha for Smith to arrange for the bringing of a suit of Mr Smith in the federal courts be cause of prejudice existing against Mr I Smith at the place where he lived I when there and that he did not dare ito I bring it in the district court At i the same time it will be shown that Mr Smith and R D Jones were in dicted for embezzlement and obtain ing money under false pretenses from the Ainslie Lumber company and that Mr Jones had to advise them much on this point and to try and prevent I them from being extradited until this matter was settled Now for all this work plaintiff was to give defendant Jones 50 per cent of the amount col lected It will also be shown that iIr Smith and R D Jones should be joined as plaintiffs because all this business had been done together and that R D Jones had as much to do with it as any one else Judge Henderson made a statement on behalf of the bank and enlarged I upon what Mr King stated and in ad dition explained Chat the evidence would show that if there was anything due plaintiff it would be from Mr Jones as all the business was done with Mr Jones and not with the bank and that the bank was nbt known in the transaction with Smith |