of any further management and the property was placed in my care with instructions to interview Mr. Stewart and make a claim for shortage. This seemed a hopeless errand. Returning to Chicago about the middle of November, I wrote the foremen, Messrs. Williams and Haskell, to meet me at Council Bluffs, Iowa, a week before Christmas so that we could talk over matters. This was also a delicate sort of business for it soon developed that they were strong Stewart men. However, they were honest in their statements about the brand, etc. So I had to call on the former owner of the herd. The suave Stewart was now the lion rampant. When I talked about some compensation for shortage I was figuratively kicked out of the office. The ingenious gentleman was rather proud evidently of having made such a smart trade. Of course I left his office fighting mad, although I had been instructed by the Edinburgh office to compromise for a small amount rather than have recourse to the Courts. But Stewart was adamant and denied all responsibility or liability.

On my way West I stopped off at Cheyenne, spending the time with Aleck Swan. He was then preparing to go to Europe to float the Swan Land & Cattle Co. When I told him the particulars of the interview with Stewart he was considerably alarmed and of course said it was infamous for Stewart not to make his contract good. The question of "count" which we had also discussed in Chicago was referred to but not pursued. In fact when it came up Aleck flecked the Budd Doble team and we went down the Boulevard at a two-forty clip. The word "count" was anathema to Swan and his associates. Next morning, using Swan's desk, I wrote a long statement of the case to Mr. William H. Swift, a leading Chicago lawyer, and who had acted in various matters for clients and myself. In due course came a general reply that subject to examining the contracts, etc., we had a good claim on Stewart.

And so it came about that we got service on Stewart in Omaha some time in 1883 in the Federal Court, and after a

wait of over a year it was set for trial in January, 1885, at Lincoln, Nebraska. Judge Dundy tried it and in his usual masterly way gave each side a fair and just hearing. When the opposing sides met at Lincoln there was an imposing array of counsel. On Stewart's side were Judge Hubbard of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Mr. John N. Baldwin of Council Bluffs Iowa, Mr. A. G. Poppleton of Omaha, Neb., and a local lawyer. On our side we had Mr. William H. Swift of Chicago, Ill., Mr. J. M. Woolworth and Mr. John W. Thurston of Omaha, Neb., also a local lawyer. It was a trial by jury and there was a lot of maneuvering to get one. After all the challenges had been exhausted the twelfth member was chosen. Poppleton made an awful grimace and sotto voce said the clerk of the Court was a damned rascal. Both sides were working in their own interest and Thurston on our side was exceedingly active. After a fierce legal fight the Judge ruled that Stewart's guarantee of 4,000 calves for 1882 was part of the contract. This was a serious blow to the defense and the climax was put on the case by Stewart's evidence on the stand. He swore under direct examination that while the inspection was going on he and I never spoke about cattle or range or had any conversation about the property. Our lawyers on cross-examination seized this point and they led Stewart on to intensify his statements, asking him all kinds of questions on this subject, what we talked about, how we spent the time, etc., etc. He got tangled up into a knot. He further testified that although the calf round-up had finished while we were at the ranch, he had never asked his foreman about the first branding and he denied stating to me that 2,800 had been branded up to time of my visit. In cross-examination on this point he was asked why he did not look into his business and find out the brand to date and why he did not disclose the facts to me. In fact, they had a bad case and they made it worse. As for instance, they called a cowboy who was in the employ of a neighbor who swore that he and his employer had stolen Z cattle from time to time. This man swore that they had roped and branded

seventy calves in the open, all the property of our company. It afterwards appeared that they had branded two head out of about seventy calves that were in the bunch.

Then they tried to prove that the shortage of the main herd came from death losses in the winter of 1882-83. To prove this they put up Williams, who, as mentioned before, had drawn a winter and spring time pay from our company, then quietly resigned, and went under the Stewart flag. He swore on the stand that the above had been an awful winter; that we had lost at least 25 per cent, possibly more. Under cross-examination the losses grew; in fact, he protested violently upon the subject. When he thought he was through and had made a good job of it, Mr. Thurston, who was crossexamining him, picked up a letter dated about April 1st, 1883, and putting it before the witness asked him to identify his signature. After violent protestation from the opposing lawyers the Judge allowed Thurston to read the contents to the jury. It had been a fair winter, the losses were only moderate, possibly ten per cent. Everything looked good and cattle had come through wonderfully notwithstanding more or less snow. Sensation and retreat of Mr. Williams. Being a foreign corporation the jury were naturally against us, but the evidence, more especially of the defense, was in our favor. You could not get away from it. While we sued for $150,000 we got a verdict for $55,000. The jury agreed to write down their individual ideas as to the damages. It came out as above. Stewart appealed. It went to the Supreme Court. The decision of the lower court was confirmed. With interest we got $72,000. The case cost Stewart over $100,000. We got net after paying expenses about $50,000, about one-third of what was due us. The case closed so far as we were concerned with rather a curious episode. Mr. Thurston was engaged on a contingent fee of 10 per cent of our recoveries. This entitled him to $7,200, the largest fee he had ever received in his life. He had no more business judgment than to file a lien in Court for his claim. The

Clerk of the Court paid it. Thurston never acted for us or our clients from that time forward.

Outside of Mr. Swift, who was a personal friend, the man connected with the trial who made the greatest impression upon me was Judge Woolworth. I met him many times afterwards in business and socially. He was a brilliant lawyer and a most delightful man wherever you met him. From behind his glasses, which he wore constantly, there peered forth a pair of twinkling eyes, very quick and observant. Mentally he was very keen and he caught a favorable point instantly. He managed a witness with great tact, leading him on to the ice gently and imperceptibly, that is, an untruthful one. He left a splendid name behind him and he was deserving of it.

I

CHAPTER XXII

N CHAPTER IV, I traced the inception of the Cattle
Ranche & Land Co. The original herd turned in by

Mr. Rufus Hatch and his associates was about 7,000 head; several neighboring herds of cattle and four or five thousand Texas steers were acquired during the summer so that after sales, etc., there were 26,000 on hand 30th November, 1882. The American Executive Committee was not consulted in any moves made; in fact, they were more or less ignored. Mr. Hatch was too busy, Mr. Houston never attended a meeting and the genial Nevada Senator, Jones, the most lovable of men, was merely there as a sort of stool pigeon. Out of the old herd and the new purchases Messrs. Spencer and Drew sold cattle in the fall to the extent of $128,000, and the London office figured out $85,000 profits, which allowed them to pay on the time the Company had been organized from 4th March to 30th November, 15 per cent of the Preferred and Deferred Capital. The shareholders were delighted and another bonanza had been discovered. The preliminary expenses were $10,000, payments being spread over three years. In addition to this sum, the promoters undoubtedly got a lot of deferred shares for their trouble. It was a game of grab I had never played at before, but it was a wholesome lesson. They are busy at the same sort of game in Wall Street and have become very proficient in these latter days.

The year 1883 was a very prosperous one, on paper at least, for this company. On referring to the annual report for that year, the sales were about $145,000, and the net profit $101,000; 4,109 steers netted $35.18 per head and the calf branding was 4,461. In the accounts no losses are mentioned. The cattle totaled 28,197. There is an increase of over 2,000 head by branding and purchases, but no mention. is made of them. You are left to guess for yourself. The