130 Findings of Fact barley that Mary is known to have had, and it is unlikely that she would have executed an assignment to Hickcox duplicating or overlapping the assignments to Ralphs, especially since Hickcox was Mary's attorney at the time and probably prepared the Ralphs' assignments for her signature. It is more likely that the author of the letter from the Asparagus Growers' Association made a simple mistake in reference. (b) By letter dated December 31, 1942, Hickcox advised Mary in part as follows: I collected $1919.85 from the Asp. Growers Assn. and applied it to your guardian account as instructed. This still leaves a balance due in that account and also in the account of your sister's guardian account. However, I am willing to rebate the balance in both of these accounts. I am mailing a copy of this letter to your father as soon as you send me his address. There is no evidence as to what guardian account was involved in the foregoing letter, or how much was in that account. 50. Mary contends that she never received the $1,919.85 discussed in the preceding finding and that, accordingly, Hickcox appropriated this money for his own use. In the administrative presentation of her claim she alleged that Hickcox had credited the sum as payment on a bill for services rendered her father as her guardian as well as the guardian of her sisters. She further stated that she never received a statement of the amount of the fee and if anything was due Hickcox it was for services he rendered her father. In short, her complaint was that Hickcox paid her father's bills out of her "estate". There is no evidence that Mary or Tom ever sought an accounting from Hickcox or that they ever protested to Hickcox about this matter. The evidence that is available (finding 49 (b), supra), infers that Hickcox deposited this money in some guardianship account for Mary or her sisters, as Mary had instructed him to do, and distributed the funds only as instructed by Mary. There is insufficient evidence to warrant the finding that Hickcox utilized these funds for his personal use or for payment for services rendered by him on behalf of the Sonodas. The inference is warranted by the record that Hickcox ren Findings of Fact 154 Ct. ClI. dered legal services (of questionable value and quality, it is true) for the plaintiff subsequent to April 12, 1940, without compensation, on the basis of his long association with the Sonodas. Preparation of Land for Rice-Removal of Levees 51. On or about May 1, 1941, Tom, through a "strawman", leased certain land for a seven-month period from one John Hancock for a rental of $250. The lease recited that the premises were leased for the purpose of growing and producing a crop of rice on the entire property. The lease was to expire November 30, 1941. The property was in poor condition due to excessive alkali content and it was thought that the large quantities of water used in rice cultivation would help leach out the salt and reclaim the soil. To the extent that rice cultivation had been practiced in the Imperial Valley up through 1942, it was indicated that its chief object was to help reclaim and restore the soil rather than produce a profitable rice crop. Water for rice cultivation was available at a reduced rate because it benefited the soil. Rice had not flourished in that area and it was a comparatively expensive crop to cultivate due to the necessity of building levees to impound the water, installation of tiling, necessity of controlling damage from wild ducks attracted to the rice and the water, and the expense of special harvesting machines which could operate in the muddy soil after the water was drained off. 52. Tom also entered into another agreement orally for the leasing at a nominal $1 rent of a nearby tract of 160 acres of virgin land for two years commencing May 1, 1941, on part of which he made preparation in early 1941 for the planting of rice as well as barley. By December 7, 1941, the harvesting of rice on the Hancock property referred to in finding 51, supra (or it may be the other location, there being some confusion) was about finished and the threshing was about to start, but the war conditions interfered with the hiring of labor for threshing. No doubt these conditions applied to both properties equally. Tom had to remove the levees from the Hancock property because the lease had expired. Tom's total expenses in 1941 in connection with rice 130 Findings of Fact cultivation were at least $2,881.10, consisting of $250 for renting the Hancock property, $250 for removing the levees from that property, and $1,669.27 in preparing the virgin land for planting rice. Mary received $3,100 in late 1941 and $2,340.55 on February 5, 1942 (total—$5,440.55) from sales of rice grown on the properties in question. Mary claims that her loss of $2,281.10 for preparation of the properties for rice cultivation was attributable to the evacuation. She does not credit her sales proceeds against her costs in calculating her alleged loss, so apparently regards this in the nature of a capital investment which it was contemplated would enable her to cultivate recurring crops of rice, although it is obvious that at least the $250 cost of removing the levees on the Hancock property was incurred as the result of the expiration of the lease. Since Tom undertook to grow rice on rented property, as described, it is clear that his prime object was profit rather than soil restoration, which latter might have been the case if he had grown it on property which he or Mary owned. The Hayfer-Rhoads Transaction 53. The matter giving rise to the Hayfer attachment on Mary's tract 44 (the Imperial farm) was discussed in finding 24, supra. To repeat Tom was advanced a total of $2,328.92 by three produce dealers in Los Angeles, on the security of the tomato crop then under cultivation at the Niland farm. The sales prices of the tomatoes shipped to the dealers were to be credited against the advances until they were liquidated, and any credit excess was to be paid to Mary. The obligations, which were open book accounts (probably secured by non-interest bearing notes), matured on three different dates between January 24 and February 24, 1942, and were not paid. The papers were discounted to one Ben Hayfer, trading as the Ace Credit Exchange, and he brought suit against Mary on March 6, 1942, for the total of $2,328.92, and undertook attachment proceedings to satisfy the claim against tract 44 and Mary's two bank accounts, distraining $647.74 in the latter from mid-March until April 17, 1942. During the pendency of the proceedings Mary borrowed $2,000 from a friend, Esther Rhoads. Hayfer was paid off and, on April 20, 1942, dismissed the court action. Charles 670-595-63—13 Findings of Fact 154 Ct. Cl. B. Ralphs repaid Mary's debt to Esther Rhoads by check for $1,630 in December 1942 plus some personal property. Mary contends that the produce dealers in Los Angeles who were the original creditors who assigned their claims to Hayfer had been paid off earlier in whole or in part by the shipment of tomatoes from Niland, and in paying Hayfer to dismiss the suit she, in effect, paid the same obligation twice. She attributes this to her evacuation, but the payment to Hayfer preceded her evacuation by one month and she was represented by counsel (Hickcox) in the Hayfer proceedings. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Tom had shipped more than a few tomatoes for the reasons described in finding 54, infra. This claim was not presented to the Attorney General in the course of administrative proceedings, nor in the petition in the instant case. However, proof was taken at trial and, in her requested findings, the plaintiff claims to have lost $370 in the transaction, apparently on the theory that the $2,000 loaned by Rhoads in March or April 1942 was paid off by Ralphs for Mary in December 1942 for $1,630, and Ralphs has not accounted for the $370 difference. Since Ralphs did not handle the original $2,000 loan by Rhoads, he cannot be charged with accounting for the difference. The $1,630 which Ralphs paid to Rhoads in December by check against Mary's account was paid out of deposits credited to that account by the sales of crops, etc. Tomatoes 54. In late 1941 Tom was cultivating 15 acres of tomatoes on the Niland farm and two acres on tract 44. Tomatoes were grown at Niland as an off-season crop whose profitability ended about the time when seasonal tomatoes from other locations came into the market at lower prices. The maximum tomato harvesting period at Niland extended from Thanksgiving to the first of the following April, but fourfifths of the crop was usually harvested prior to mid-March. The outbreak of war on December 7, 1941, created a shortage of Japanese farmhands whose services were necessary for the more skilled operations of sorting and packing, and consequently Tom was able to harvest only about one-third of his tomato crop at Niland, the balance being allowed to die 130 Findings of Fact on the vine. Market conditions for tomatoes from the Niland area were depressed in the first quarter of 1942. It was also a poor year for tomatoes in that area. Tom feared that he would be charged by the Government with sabotage of food supplies if he discontinued efforts to harvest tomatoes. The two-acre crop of tomatoes on the Imperial farm (tract 44) dried up because the Filipino sharecropper who was working that plot with his crew quit in early January and refused to pick the crop. Because of the conditions as described, Tom shipped very few tomatoes that season, and there is no evidence as to how much, if any, tomatoes were shipped to the Los Angeles produce dealers to whom the Sonodas owed the advances referred to in finding 53, supra. The plaintiff seeks to recover $8,800 for loss of her tomato crops at the Niland and Imperial farms, and attributes the loss to a shortage of required labor brought about by the threatened evacuation of persons of Japanese ancestry. This claim was not specifically included among those presented to the Attorney General for administrative consideration. Cantaloupes 55. In late 1941 the plaintiff contemplated planting a spring crop of cantaloupes. Generally, the spring crop would be planted from late December through January, so that it could reach the market prior to the arrival of better, less expensively produced cantaloupes from other producing areas where the climate would not permit an early crop such as at Niland. The plaintiff spent $4,000 in preparing 100 acres of the Niland farm to plant cantaloupes, but after the outbreak of war abandoned the plan, for some reason not adequately explained in the record. She did not present the specific claim to the Attorney General in the course of administrative proceedings. PLAINTIFF'S INCOME AND FINANCES 56. Mary's gross wages from her secretarial employment in Chicago for that part of 1943 following her release from the relocation center were $930.43, and for the succeeding five years through 1950 they ranged from $2,505 to $3,080 each year, on a rising scale. With this income she supported |