Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-03-19
THE OTHER SIDE.
THEO. HAYES AND LAUTENSCHLAa-
Frs ATTORNET HIVE THEIR SAY.

Z
and Insinuate Great Many Bad Things
Theodore Tells the Story of His Law suit
With His Step-Father-The Convicted
Murderers Want an Acquittal, but Would
Not Accept a Pardon.
Theodore Hayes, the son of the murdered
Mrs. Lick, by her first husband, called at
The GLOBE Office yesterday, and, expressing
desire to give his version of the burning of
the Lick residence, and other matters Incl
ascertain his views. After congratulations,
the following was elected:
Rep.-Who are the children of your
mother who claim an interest in the proper
ty in question, and what motive have they or
any of them in destruction of the improve
ments thereon9
Theodore There are seven children of us,
names not here important, all minors except
myself; left by my mother in possession of
the property alluded to: All of us were
turned out of the house in ruthless man
ner by Joseph Lick shortly after mothers
death. AS to the burning of the house which
was insured for the benefit of Joseph Lick,
as I, understand, for about $500, no one
can suppose, without proof, that any Of
us could be induced to do it for the
benefit of Joseph Lick which
could in no way benefit us. The
burning of the house, insured for Joseph
Lick's benefit, would put 800, the insur-
ance money on the house, in the pocket of
MIR. Lick, but not one cent into ours So
such an act as burning the house, if done by
any one except Joseph Lick, OF some one in
his interest, would be without motive
operating on any one of us. And as people,
whether old Or young, are not supposed to
act without motive, such an act as burning
the house insured for Mr.. Lick s benefit, can
not be imputed to any one of us. do not
say that Mr.. Lick burned the house, but |
mean, simply, to say that the motive to burn
it was on his side. And l am informed by
my attorneys, and know we'll myself. that
the burning of the property built on the lot
in dispute, would do me no good i'll any suit
l have for the same against Mr.. Lick. The
public may rest assured that l am not SO
stupid as to do an act that would only injure
me, and benefit Mr.. Lick.
Rep.-As to the suit for the lot, what is
your interest in that? Was not the property
decided by your father to Joseph Lick?
Ans.-No, sir; my father died on the
property, and never decided it to any one.
When his skull had been crushed in by the
fall of a bushel of stone upon him when
down in well some twenty two feet, and
after he was pronounced by DR.. Stewart, our
family physician, to be in comatose dying
condition, notary public came to the death
bed of my father with deed drawn up convey.
ing the property in question to my uncle in
fruSt roonfha1. ar,f1 o,,l
his own pen into the hand of my father. and
grasping the hand and pen, made mari,
with the pen of the notary by movement
of his own and not of my father
and then retired and finished
the execution of the deed out of the pres
ence of my father. And the notary in court
on his oath asserted that he did not take
any acknowledgment of the deed, further
than as above, and never read the deed tc
my father, and never delivered it to him. nol
did my father ever have the deed under his
control, nor did he ever deliver it to any one
And all the two juries alluded to in the arti-
Gle to which this is an answer. had as any
Justification for their verdict, was that the
notary swore on the trial that he ':thought
my father knew what he was doing when the
deed was executed by him instead of my
father The jury supposed the notary was
better judge of a good deed than they were
and even better judge of the condition
then the family physician, who pronounced
my father in comatose dying condition, be-
fore the time of making the deed, and SO
continued to his death. It was upon that
deed two juries passed in the suit of the adj
ministrators of August Hayes VS.. Joseph
Lick, for the possession of the property
named.
Rep.-What is the present suit in the cir
cult court of the United States against Lick
about?
Ans.-The heirs claim the Inheritance as
their own, in said real estate, and, as one of
them, now of full age, have instituted this
suit for myself and brothers and sisters.
This is a wholly different suit from the one
tried in the district court, and the only one
that has been brought by the heirs
for the property. .'Now, ]
cannot see what troubles Joseph
Lick SO very much, unless it is the ghost OF
my murdered mother. He has good title
he says, to the lot; but for which he never
paid one cent; and he has the verdicts of two
several juries affirming his title; and hence
he should not be uneasy about his title to the
lot. 1t may be something else that troubles
him; and it may be the ghost of my untime-
~ AnuIOeIoO uOtuer IudG QauntS MIN. But
l do not believe the ghost Of the departed
troubles Joseph Lick half so much as the
memory of living witnesses.
Rep.-Were you witness in the trial of
George Lautenschlager.
Answer was, and whatever I
swore to on that trial was true.
and l will, if called on, swear to the same
again. Whether my testimony tended to
the conviction of Lautenschlager, or not. 1
know not, but this do know, that Joseph
Lick has robbed the heirs of August Hayes,
OF the property in dispute, and he does not
seem satisfied. He wishes the world to be-
lieye that the heirs are prosecuting him,
when they appeal to the courts for their le-
gal rights. He thinks that so cold blooded
and successful a game as he has played,
ought to be submitted to with
out murmur. But, unfortunately.
perhaps, for me, was not member of the
Sunday school class with Joseph Lick, Jr.,
taught by the Hon. w. H. Mead, when that
true Christian morality was taught that,
when one is robbed of his earthly posses
sions he should complacently smile; and say
to the robber, you are my benefactor, and
all have is yours. My character and good
name is all that is left; all this is at your
for 1iofi