Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-26

IL.
or bring aud win see the paving tax paid by him.
' Truly iyt guns s Put In proper shARe xLAr1A
,o &c sale lot IA. square l54. Vim. Reading:
June jun T. BY lot IL, So 154 Dr. ss SIS es
Deed 5 oo stamp. si.00 90
TO- cash oSesk to bal 81 81 % %
ss45 s. ss45 s.
KILBoURN LArTA.
Washington D. c.. June TO- 1871.
THE CONDENSED FACTS
For convenience let me condense the above
INTO Its ultimate facts. Mr.. Reading employed
the firm OF kilbourn & Latta as his brokers on
an agreed commission of five per cent to sell for
him to the best advantage a lot in Washington
which he thought worth fifteen cents per foot
They shortly after wrote to him that an offer of
eight cents per foot had been made and advised
him to accept it. To this letter he answered
saying that he thought the price too low, and
they in reply stated that it was q good
price, and also that they had already
assured the proposed purchaser that he
could nave the lot at that price, on which assur-
ance he had incurred an expense of SIS in ex-
amlning title, and that they therefore felt under
obligation to let him have it. On these repre-
sentatlOns Reading consented to the sale at this
price, and executed deed to Hodge, the
amount of consideration being. at their sugges-
tion left blank that it might be filed In i'm the
same handwriting as the balance of the deed
that OF Omstead. The firm sent to him an &C
count sale showing the property had been sold
for sS45. s. and after deducting commissions.
&c, showing net balance of 1921 40 which
was all that Reading received. The price act
uaily paid by Hodge (Readings grantee) to Kill
bourn Latta was 81 .2O4. Al. Several months
aIterWard, Mr. Reading having had his suspi-
cions aroused. investigated and discovered the
deception which had been practised, and also
the means of proving it beyond cOntes1ation
His attorney. Mr.. Dayidge, then sent for Latta
charged the fraud. and showed the proofs.
latfa attempted TO explain by saying that al
though the deed had been made directly from
headlng to Hodge, yet the person who
had really purchased from Reading for SSl5
WAS ]. F. OLMSTEAD,
clerk. as he said of the firm, and that Olmstead
had resold Immediately to Hodge for 81, 2O4
On being told that this would not answer for an
explanation, and under threat of prosecution.
the firm, to prevent public exposure, paid back
to Reading, not merely the actual profit, $500
which they had made. but also considerable
bill Of expense, and in addition gave up their
commissions. Mr.. Olmstead was not only
throughout all this a member of the firm, but
personally. as the papers show, took leading
part In the transaction.
/ have selected this transaction from much
material of the same Sort first because the facts
being established its character is unmistakabe.
lt was flagrant fraud and could only have
been perpetrated by men as mean as they were
dishonest. Second, because Mr.. Olmstead's con-
hectlOn with it appears by cOntemporaneOus
papers in his own handwriting. Third because
the proof is simple ard easily Obtainable In
wife MIR. Reading and Mr.. Olmstead to confront
each other before any tribunal of investigation.
and the truth will in half an hour become APP
parent. Fourth. because the disgOrging by the
firm OF their ill-gOtten gains under threat OF
prosecution Is confession of their guilt.
TWO QUESTIONS.
close the subject by asking two questions:
flrst-HOw many transactions of this character
does it take to show that Mr.. Olmstead is not
tit man to be a Commissioner of the District of
Columbia?
Seconds there any Senator of the United
States whose conscience will permit him, after
reading the above statement, to vote for the
confirmation of Mr.. Olmstead without an inVes-
tigatiOn Of this transaction?
MORE ABOUT THE PECULIAR BUSINESS TRANsAC-
TONS OF OLMSTEAD co.
shall make no other reply to the balance of
Mr.. Olmstead's interview than to print some ex-
tracts from the deposition of his late partner.
Mr.. Latta, in the cause OF KilbOurn Olmstead
VS.. Latta above mentioned, taken before the
date OF the controversy between the firm and
sunderland and Hiliyer. and therefore not re-
lating to their suit 1 think, in the light they
throw on the business methods Of the firm of
kb0urn & Latta, they will be found pertinent
and interesting.
1t is true that Mr.. Olmstead does not think
that Latta is to be believed when he makes
statements under oath. and he has testified that
such is his opinion. Mr.. Latta, as will be seen
from the first extract below. fully recprocates
the compliment. While it is quite possible that
in respect to crediblity each has a correct
opinion of the other. / still think that Iattas
admissions against himself as well as his part
ners as to their manner OF conducting business
should be accepted as true.
The testimony will be found in the clerks
office, vol: l. defendants testimony, equity
cause No. 59I9.
The following is from Mr.. Latta's testimony
on direct examinations:
Tip Q. The 95th question put to Mr. Omstead in bs
examination chiefs follows Please state what ycu
city, being the hyson matter referred to in the i of
complaint Have you read his answer to that ques-
s s What h have to state in relation that
H., ms answer Is SIMPLY fiction. pure and una
It's q There has been good deal said in the course
OF this case about certain real estate that to
"A Gan only understand this from your question:
really for and & 81 IN Msy u
1872 but which entered into the account OF Kbourn
ata and olnstead asgresans something ike SIS coo
Mr. Nilson.-That ia what refer to-
The Nitness-1t figures IN the account of KjIbO,rn
Ldttd and On,sedd, buf realty purchased for Sun.
deTtdnd and Htiyer and tarned to htir account
probably ten or fifteen twenty days aftsrSard
1900 State the facts in relation to the purchase
and sale of the property in square 242.
A That property rGs bargaiaed for by the orders
~ the ReGt Estate ssOcfdtiOn There delay in the
execution OF the deed account Of it having to back
ana forth to EUROPE twice. and in tine meantime
FOUND that colid sell the Vermont front at
about twenty iVe per cent profit. and did bargain Il
array We then took that portion it Ourseires and
turned the IT to the Association
SO that item Of $40. 600 of purchases of kbcurn
Iatta IL comprised i'll that $33 200 of sold before
the deed returned, and had inuested dollar
IN. ''.''
On cross-examination Mr.. Latta testified as
follows:
''467 IA. What do yon mean by when the firm was
in condition to purchaser
"a. When they had the money.
- SX-q. II You thought the purchase a very desir-
able one. did You not make the purchase when you did
not have the money?
"A. Noifor ourselves no.
''469 x,q. When You had an opportunity of placing
it some where else?
"a. Then took the nonev Of the parfv tcho,r me
expected to place it rith when Ii was in possession
it In several instances and made tue purchase
ind turned IL TO them within a