, 1877-03-18

THE DEED-FORGER, JIM REID,


has come to the surface again, this time not as q
witness against alleged partnerin crime, but as
adcfendant himself, be having been indicted yes
tcrday By the Grand Jury for perjury. It seems
that in 1875 Mr.. George c. Miller, a banker in
ST. Louis, commenced suit against the occu-
pants Of forty-acre tract OF land on Grand ave-
nue., in that city,-a very valuable piece Of prop
crty,-their chain of title being defective, rs al
legged, and he having acquired the missing link
by purchase. Among the defendants were Mr..
William Clopton, the Mead heirs, and the st.
Louis University. On the trial Of the Mead
case, Patton, who was Rudolphus K. Turner's
clerk, swore that Reed told him he
Miller claimed title. In May, 1875, while the
suit was pending, notice was served On Mr.. e.
". 4. Brantly, Millcr's attorney, by Mr.. Clop-
ton, to take Reeds deposition in Chicago. Mr..
Brant1y came here. and after remaining day or
two learned that Mr.. Clopton had concluded not
to take Reeds affidavit, .: since it wouldn't do
MIN any good" Meeting Reed on the street
subsequently, Miller being in the city at the
time, he asked him i he Knew anything about
the deed. Reed said he did not. AIr, Brantly
that he (Brantly) would have to see Mr.. Bisbce,
his attorney. afr. Brantly saw Mr.. Bisbee, and
he said Reed knew something which would be
to his Brantly's) advantage This occurred
on Saturday. The Monday following Reed
made an affidavit that he did not sign
the deed, or get any one 10 do tin fact, that
hc knew nothing whatever about it. For this
he was paid $500 or $500. Reed said at the time
that nc was poor, and as Mr. Brantly had no
authority to compel him to make an affidavit,
and as Reed was here, there, aud everywhere,
and very difficult to get hold Of Miller consent
cd to pay him for information which would
benefit him in his suit. This affidavit, however,
was not offered in evidence in the Mead case,
the Elaintif winning it in the lower court; and,
on appeal to the Supreme Court, Judgment was
affirmed. The case against Mr. Clopton was
compromised by him, he paying $500 down and
deciding to Miller a portion Of the property in
dispute.
COMMENCED AN EsECTMEST SUIT AGAINST MIR.
MILLER,
having procured an affidavit from Reed that he
forged tho decd held BY Miller, the manner Of
getting it up being explained by Reed: and
similar paper and the same seals used in the
forgery being attaclled to the document as ex-
hibts. It will be remembered that, at the time
OF the arrest Of Turner and Reed n year or SO
ago, for the alleged forging of deeds to prop
erty in Hyde Park held BY George ". Hill,
trunk was captured in the possession Of Reed in
which was complete forger's outft,-old
paper, court seals, notarial seals, etc. Among
the seals was the one used, us Reed claims, IN
getting up the deed now owned By Miller. and
BY virtue Of which he seeks to obtain possession
OF the forty-acrc tract on Grand avenue. This
second affidavit was taken In Chicago on the 7th
inst. in the presence Of Millcr's attorney, Mr..
Birch, and on cross-cxamination Reed stated
that yr. Clopton lad promised to pay him
81 800 in case he won his suit.
Having already sworn that he did not make
the decd, and had no knowledge of it, Reed
must have lied either the first or the second
time; and, inasmucl1 Us Clopton had promised
Reed more money than Miller paid him through
q third party, Miller concluded that Reed had
sworn falsely this Inst time, and accordingly
had him arrested for perjury.
He was aEraigned before Justice Haines yes
ter1lay for hearing, but the Grand Jury having
examined the witness Tor the prosecution and |
found a true bill, the case was continued until
Tuesday. The indictment will probably be re-
turned Monday. This will take the matter ont !
OF the hands OF tho Justice, and the true In |
wartfncss Of the ease will not be exposed until |
the trial takes place IN the Criminal Court Reed |
gave $500 bonds for his appearance. lie I
admits having made the first affidavit, but SAYS |
Miller and his friends got him to drink too
much, and threatened to put him through in St. |
Louis unless he made it. They paid him for the /
work. That affidavit, he says, was false, but |
the last one contains the truth, be having forged
the deed Miller has, at the Southern Hotel, in
St: Louis, in 1871. for one William II. Gitt. |
Taken altogether tho case is somewhat mixed,
and IT Tlll require q pretty shtewd criminal
lawyer to bring out all the facts.