CharlesCrocker1880_0032

possession that contract is?

A. No.

Q. 153 In your answer in this case you say
"They deny that said contracts
"were made with said C. Crocker
"and Company for the joint or individual
"profit and gain of the said Leland
"Stanford, C. P. Huntington, Hopkins, E. B.
"Crocker or either of them or that
"they were let at prices or rates
"which were exorbitant or excessive
"or at rates equal to 200 per, cent
"or at any per cent over and above
" the actual or reasonable cash and
"expense of the work done and
"the materials, furniture or equipment
" furnished the same in the name
"of said C. Crocker and Company."
Will you state what was the
actual cash and expense of the
work done and materials furnished
in the name of C. Crocker and Company?

Mr. Sanderson.[underlined] Counsel "for plaintiff"[crossed out]
for defendant asks counsel for
plaintiff to explain what work
he refers to, whether work done on
the Central Pacific Railroad or
on the Western Pacific Railroad
prior to the consolidation.

Mr. Cohen.[underlined] 154 This particular allegation I
understand to refer to a contract