Jensen

This is another of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands cases.

In the present ease exceptions were taken to the instructions given by the court in reference to two witnesses for the appellant and one witness for the appellee. In commenting on the testimony of the first witness for the appellant, the court said: “Moreover, there is testimony that their agent in Minnei apolis made the same representations, LindT say and Fotheringham, and while Fotheringham denies it in his deposition, Lindsay has not been called to testify in respect to the matter. Having made that representation in its book, it may point the way to determine whether Fotheringham made them in spite of his denials, because first in his deposition he says, 'I told them the same as in the book,’ although later in the deposition he says he did not say anything about commercial orchard. If he told them what was in the book, he did. In presenting the case to thp plaintiffs for the defendant, is it reasonable that he would tell them just what he was told by this book? He was seeking purchasers for defendant. Ask yourself what was reasonable in the circumstances, and remember, Gentlemen of the Jury, that reasonableness is a…