This affiant D. G. Scofield being duly sworn deposes and says:

I reside in San Francisco, am interested in the firm of F.B. Taylor and Company and also in said corporation defendant, have often visited the Pico oil wells. I control the correspondence between the employees of said company in Los Angeles County and the principal office in San Francisco. The company has always furnished tankage for Mr. Mentry whenever he required it and has always had more than sufficient tankage to take care of the oil produced at the wells under ordinary circumstances.

Well No. 4, being the well that has produced the largest quantity of oil, produced very little oil until the latter part of November last, when upon being deepened it became a flowing well, producing large quantities of oil. With good needs, the tankage available then was sufficient. But Mr. Mentry anticipation the possibility of the stoppage of the road, ordered an additional tank of five hundred barrels capacity, which was forthwith furnished him. The rains were unusually heavy last season and unusual interruption in hauling was occasioned thereby. Mentry immediately ordered another five hundred barrel tank, but the erection of the same was a short time delayed owing to the fact that the wash outs on the railroad prevented the transportation of freight for a short time, but the tank was constructed as soon as possible. In this way, as will be seen, the company actually furnished to meet the contingency of last winters wet season, tankage for one thousand barrels more than was previously required. The road, however, was in the worst condition than had been known for years, and there was a few days when the tankage was insufficient and some oil had to be turned into the creek. An accurate account, however, was kept of this as shown by Mentry’s affidavit and the defendant corporation is willing and able to account for the same to Baker and his associates and other assigns under the Denton lease.

For a few days only, during the said wet season, the pumping wells were not pumped for oil, but were pumped to keep them clear of water. The defendant corporation used every exertion possible to have the oil produced at the wells hauled away and as it was entitled under the lease to seven-eights of all the oil produced, it will be seen that it was to its interest to prevent any wastage and I think that the percentage of oil wasted under Mentry’s administration has not only been small, but that his careful management of affairs has been aided by rare good luck.

I was present at the conversation between Mentry and Lyon, and Mentry and Lockwood described in Mentry’s second affidavit herein and his statement of the same is correct. After Lyon had talked with Mentry, he came to me and expressed great regret that his affidavit was in the shape it was and after some talk he telegraphed to one of Baker’s attorneys in Los Angeles, that he desired to correct his affidavit, as some of the statements contained therein, were inaccurate, and he wished to correct the same to prevent his testimony being impeached. Several telegrams passed between the parties, which I saw, and they resulted in his going to Los Angeles on Friday last with the avowed intention of correcting his affidavit.

A short time before he left, I had a conversation with him respecting some claims he had made upon F.B. Taylor and Company for the evaporation of oil produced from his well and sold by him to them. The Lyon well has produced on and average about three barrels per day and F.B. Taylor and Company have had its product gauged twice a month and Lyon has frequently complained to me that this was not often enough and that he lost heavily by deterioration and shrinkage in quantity between the times of said gauges being taken. In said last named conversation, I called his attention to his affidavit respecting the deterioration of oil when tanked and gave him the copy served upon defendant to read. He said “I am surprised at this and I do not see how I could have been so inconsistent.” In a few moments he left for Los Angeles for the purpose aforesaid.

Upon his return, he informed me that he had told Baker’s attorneys that Mentry and I would make statements in our affidavits as to the corrections he desired to make and that as his affidavit had already been filed and served, they thought it best that he should not change it on the record and that upon consultation with them, he did not change it as he intended when he went down.

I also saw Thomas Wait, on of Baker’s witnesses and while he seemed disinclined to talk, he admitted that all the wastage he had seen was during the wet season of last winter. I also talked with R.C. McPherson for a short time and he admitted that he had had no experience in handling or tanking California oils and that his testimony regarding the question of deterioration was based solely on his experience in Pennsylvania. He further admitted that he had never seen any of the Pico wells plugged so as to obstruct the flow of oil and that at the time of making his affidavit filed in this case, he was asked the question as to whether he had ever seen the wells plugged and he had stated he had never seen them plugged except with an outlet for the flow of the oil.

I have not had an opportunity since seeing their affidavit, in behalf of Baker, of talking to the parties stating the same, except as above stated, but know E.F. Weed, C.G. Barclay, A.L. McPherson, Williams, Ralph and H. A. Barclay, and am in a position to know and I do state positively that neither of them, nor has R.C. McPherson or Thomas Wait, ever had any experience, either in producing, refining or tanking of oil in the state of California up to the time of the filing of their affidavits in this case.

Lyon did own the Lyon well but he did not personally drill the same and as I know has had but little to do with operating and pumping the well, the same having been done chiefly by G. W. Porter and Herbert Stanton. He is not an oil refiner of practical well driller or operator and his experience as to the deterioration of oil is entirely based upon the evaporation in the tank of which he has frequently complained to me as aforesaid. I know this from personal observation said Lyon being a farmer and also from his statement to me.

During the last two years I have had frequent conversation with both R.C. McPherson and Sanford Lyon in regard to C.A. Mentry, respecting his qualifications as a driller and operator of oil wells and they have both spoken in the highest terms of his capability and the manner in which he had operated the Pico wells. I never heard either of them speak in any other terms of him until after Mentry ceased helping McPherson on his well as stated in Feore’s affidavit and until he, Mentry, discovered a serious error in the gauge of the receiving tank at Lyon’s well, which tank was gauged by H. A. Barclay, who made a table showing its contents to be about twenty barrels more than it actually contained and which error Barclay had to correct, as this made considerable difference to Lyon, some ill feeling was engendered.

I have had several conversations during the last year with R.S. Baker and E.F. Beale and although they both knew that I was active in the management of the affairs of the defendant corporation, neither of them ever complained to me as to the way in which the Pico wells were being operated and worked by Mentry and I have never heard from anyone, and adverse criticism as to his management of the same until after litigation commenced.

There is now an action at law in name of the defendant corporation against the San Francisco Petroleum Company of which R.C. McPherson is the superintendant and one of the principal owners for oil furnished said company for fuel and to run their machinery. Said McPherson was appointed as Receiver in a previous suit of R.S. Baker against the California Star Oil Works Company in the 17th District Court on an ex parte application, which Receivership was vacated as soon as a hearing was obtained, and he is therefore to some extent interested in this suit and, as I am informed, he expects in case of the plaintiff should be successful in this action, that he would again be appointed receiver and has so stated.

I have read the affidavit of G.A. Armstrong filed on behalf of plaintiff herein and am satisfied that his statement that he would have paid $5 per barrel for the crude oil delivered at the well is not made in good faith. I am and have been largely connected with the oil business on this coast and as I have for our company, been for sometime pas selling our refined oil at the Andrews Station Refinery for ten cents per gallon or $4.20 per barrel delivered in bulk on tank cars. I know that crude oil which he says that he would have paid $5 for at the wells would have cost him hauled to the rail road $6 per barrel or $1.80 per barrel more for the crude oil, than we were selling the refined oil for, which I deem conclusive proof that said statements are not “bona fide.”

As to the Feore location mentioned in affidavit of Leaming filed in behalf of plaintiff, I have to say that Mr. F.B. Taylor had purchased interests of Baker’s co-tenants in the mining locations made in the name of Baker, Beale, Lyon, and others in 1865 and also interests of Lyon and Leaming in the Denton lease. Last year he ascertained that Mr. Baker had applied to the state of California to purchase the lands embracing the Pico claim from the State under a College land selection as agricultural land and proposed to obtain a patent for the land under a state selection and to repudiate the old mining location and hold said land adverse to Taylor, his co-tenant. This led the parties in interest to fear that Baker knew of some defect in the original location and the Feore location was made to protect parties in interest. The defendant corporation had nothing to do with said location of Feore.

D. G. Scofield

July 15, 1878