Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/493

. BME V. MARTIN. 479 �of Ohio, and is not 'subject to the conditions and qualifications imposed thereby. The only qualifications which congress deemed necessary are 8X- pressed in the act of congress ; and the admission in evidence o£ previouf communications to couiisel is not one of tli'eik." �Thifl is very strong, and fully warrants us in admitting the testi^ timony of the plaintifif, Eice, in this case. �Corning now to the facts, there is nothing in thetestimony of any of the plaintiff's witnesses, or in Norton's letter, inconsistent with the theory of the defendants that the purohase of the cattle and ranch waa in fact negotiated by and through Eice, on joint account, but was given up for lack of . funds to carry out the bargain. Ail agree that the final delivery did not take place until June 5, 1875. Ai that date,.Eice sayshewas half.satisfiedthat Norton denied bis in tert est; yet he never, according to bis own story, bad any distinct under-^ standing with Norton in bis life-time. After bis death he cornes forward to claim a half interest in the ranch, cattle, and increase. In legal conteinplation, to be half saiisfied is tO be put on inquiry, and to know definitely one way or the other. . Eice,'therefore, knew that Norton denied bis interest in June, 1875. �Eice says, at page 52 of his testimony: "From the summer of 1875 until Norton's death, Norton and I transacted the business of partnership as follows: We consulted itogether," etc.; which means, if anything, that Norton recognized him as having an interest. Yet further on, at page 82 et seq., he confesses that he was completely shut out from any management of the alleged partnership property, and half believed that Norton denied his rights so early as June, 1875. Wben the defendants assert that Eice gave up the contract because he bad not enough money to-jperform it, he bas no trouble in sbowing by bimself (page 617) and other witnesses that he bad a large amount (between $20,000 and $30,000 worth) of property. Wben, on the other hand, he is asked to explain why he did not move in this matter during Norton's life-time, and at least have a perfect understanding with him, he says be was too poor to bring a suit and do justice to his creditors ; that being half satisfied Norton denied, or would deny, his interest if he approached him on the subject, he never said anything to him. �For a third reason or excuse for his laches he says, at page 56 : "Mr. Norton always held out to me" that he would soon be able to settle accounts; i. e., partnership accounts. If he believed that Nor- ton denied his partnership interest, as he must, he could not have had any genuine belief that ha would settle. One Albert Shuler ��� �