The Federal Reporter (Annotated), Volume 169: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and Circuit and District Courts of the United States. June-July, 1909. Page: 25
xi, 1023 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
PERBIN V. UNITED STATES.
sets forth the payments made by Dr. Perrin to Benson in cash and
forest reserve script for the lands referred to in these contracts, and
the statement made by Dr. Perrin concerning the reason for turning
over to Benson 8,000 acres of forest reserve scrip held by Dr. Perrin
at that time, in exchange for state school indemnity locations which
he was to receive from Benson. The affidavit then relates a statement
made by Dr. Perrin in February, 1904, that he had conferred with
Judge A. E. Bolton of San Francisco, and that the contracts with
Benson were in all probability illegal ones; that he had gone to Ben-
son, on threats that he would have Benson arrested, and had succeeded
in getting another contract from him. A copy of a copy of this con-
tract was attached to the affidavit, marked "C." This contract, dated
February 4, 1904, contains an agreement on the part of Dr. Perrin to
purchase lands from Benson to the amount of 14,000 acres; Benson
to obtain a good title, under the provisions of the act of Congress of
June 4, 1897-the forest reserve act. The agreement also provided
that:
"For that purpose said Perrin has paid said Benson thirty-two thousand
($32.000) dollars, to cover payment for his services, the surveying fee for se-
lecting the land, and the expenses and costs in paying for said lands in the
procuring title therefor, during the time specified in this contract, under said
law, or under any law by which title can now, or at any time during the life
of this contract, be legally obtained."
Dr. Perrin was called as a witness in his own behalf, and was shown
this contract, dated February 4, 1904, and was asked this question:
"Was this paper, Dr. Perrin, intended by you as a substitute and
supersession of the October and November agreements?" To which
question the witness answered, "It was." Thereupon the United States
by its attorney moved to strike out said answer, which motion the court
granted. Thereafter, during the direct examination of Dr. Perrin, and
after his identification of the signatures to this contract of February
4, 1904, bearing the signature of Dr. Perrin and also the signature of
John A. Benson, the documents were offered in evidence. The attor-
ney for the United States objected, and the court sustained the objec-
tion. To the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial excluding
the affidavit of Williams and the contracts and the other documents in-
closed in Dr. Perrin's letter of September 14, 1905, and denying de-
fendant's motion to strike out Dr. Perrin's letter and the copy of the
contract of October 31, 1903, the attorney for Dr. Perrin interposed
exceptions and reserved exceptions to the rulings.
We are of the opinion that the court was in error in excluding the
affidavit of Williams inclosed in the letter of Dr. Perrin to Hunt.
The latter was a special agent of the General Land Office; he was a
witness for the United States. He testified that he desired to get a
statement from Dr. Perrin about the transaction with Benson, and ob-
tained a verbal statement from Dr. Perrin, and in addition he received
a letter from Dr. Perrin in which the latter said:
"I send herewith the statement of Mr. Williams covering as I believe all the
points you suggested. If the statement does not cover any point, I would
thank you to advise me."
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter (Annotated), Volume 169: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and Circuit and District Courts of the United States. June-July, 1909., legislative document, 1909; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38215/m1/36/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.