352 FEDERAL REPORTKB. �Babb, D. J. Tbis suit is brought to recover of defendant, as executrix, the sum of $100,000, with interest from July 29, 1872, which it is alleged was expended and lost by rea- son of, and upon, the fraudulent pretences and representa- tions made by Philip Arnold to the plaintiff in reference to a pretended discovery of a diamond field on the borders of New Mexico and Arizona. The answer of the defendant traverses the allegations of the petition, and pleads and relies upon the statute of limitations, which bars such actions after five years. One of the paragraphs of the answer alleges that the cause of action accrued when the money was paid, in July, 1872, and when the alleged fraud was perpetrated; and the other para- graph sets up and relies upon the statute of limitations, upon • the idea that the cause of action accrued when plaintiff dis- covered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. This is alleged to have been in the month of November or December, 1872. The replication of plaintiff, in one of its paragraphs, attempts to avoid the allegation of the second paragraph in the answer by alleging the discovery of the fraud of Arnold within five years before the bringing of the suit, which was October 23, 1879. This paragraph of the replication bas been held bad on demurrer, because it did not allege any facts showing or tending to show diligence in the investigation of the alleged fraud. Time was given plain- tiff to amend his replication. This time has expired, and no amendment has been filed or tendered. The demurrer to the other paragraph of the replication Was overruled. This par- agraph (third) was perhaps intended to be a traverse of the third paragraph of the answer of the defendant, which sets up and relies upon the statute of limitations, upon the idea that the cause of action only accrued when the fraud was discovered, and that the burden of alleging and proving when the discovery was made, is upon the defendant. �The defendant now moves the court for judgment upon the plea of the statute, as pleaded in the second paragraph of the answer. This motion is based upon the theory that plaintiff's cause of action is presumed to have accrued when the fraud is alleged to have been perpetrated, and the money ��� �
