Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-01-06
MIR. OLMsTEAD,s CASE.
Answer to the Charge. Aeain.. Him.

| Answer to the Charges Against Him.
We publish below Mr. Olmstead's answer to the
charges which have been preferred against him
with view to defeat his confirmation. We do this
Tor the reason that the charges have been hereto
fore published in these columns, and as an act OF
simple justice to Mr.. Olmstead, anording the
public an opportunity OF judging whether the
charges were true or false.
MR. oLMsTEAD's STATEMENT.
The first charge was the copy OF bill In equity
now pending In the Equity Court, filed by Thomas
sunderland and c. j. Hillyer, against Ktlbourn,
Latta and Olmstead, in which IL is claimed that
the defendants defrauded the complainants In q
sale OF real estate in this city.
The property purchased by Sunderland and
Hillyer In this city, through and from Klpourn
Latta, was owned by them in the following pro-
portion: sunderland three-fourths; Hillyer, one
dollars in Favor 20 Of
sunderland owned a large amount in his own
right
On the 2si of last month Mr.. O,mstcad received
from Mr sunderland the following letter:
Jno. r. Ol,Hstead:
Dr. siE;.I have no desire to oppose your conrma-
Wonid be gSatified to learn that you have been
nT 1ssnea1 yours truly r, s.
December 23d. 1882.
The question at issue between Mr. Olmstead and
Sunderland and Hiyer is one OF law and fact
PeuuiuS ocloIe tuo CndnCellOr
The whole question depends upon whether
under the circumstances the defendants were
bound to sell this property for what they paid for
1t or had right to sell it at profit and this the
court will decide.
That Sunderland and Hfllyer purchased at fair
price is proved by the fact that on the same day
OF the purchase kilbourn Latta received an ofrer
from another party OF $4,000, being $4,000 more
IMAM was paid by Sunderland and Hillyer
AS mas been stated, this case is pending in q
concerned. and Mr. Olmstead has no desire to dis
cusS the question in the newspapers or elsewhere
having full confidence in the justice of his cause
and the wisdom OF the tribunal that is to deter
mine 1t.
ro AS to the charge preferred by Mr.. Hyer with
& Latta as the agents OF William Reading to ]. I.
Hodge, transaction which took place some years
oeiore MT iysrs arrival In this CITY, Mr. Ohm
John +. Olmstead being duly sworn deposes and
the firm of XII ourn Latta and William Reading,
o y s that 9t thy s,s in
ton was one in which he had no interest whaever
and with and the BUSINESS ns ci int
had originated before he became no time
or paid any of the losses. @A0 pA'-'>'
sveS managed 5y Mr. James Tas eae ibe
knowedge or concurrence Of MIR. Kibourn, and that
NTH Ss ss9s
December. 1882. W p YouNa. ' ~
Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia
THE STATEMENT OF HALLEr KnBouRN.
Tho transaction in real estate, referred to by Mr. Hill
charges against Mr. Olmstead with purpose to defeat
his confirmation was which MIR. Olp stead had
no interest one way or the other.
1t was matter over which he had no control and
with which he had no connection other than writing
the letters, which bear his name at the dictaon of INV
then partner. James NJ. Latta.
This transaction was conceived and managed by Mr.
forth the newspaper article referred to- they were such
Mess Y and and they
9f the ne funds which MI kesing Claimed he en
Ing MIN an excuse Tor complaint.
Washington. D. c.. Dec. q. 1852.
2. The affidavit of J. L. Hodge
q. Ledy ara Hodge, being duly sworn, deposeth and
That he purchased lot H. square l54 Washington. D.
C OF william kesdins in May ls1 being trans
published rsoent.y in The EVENING star.
ad that Mr. F. stsas so by
ahen t had or now have any had inter
Subscribed and sworn to before the undersigned
this 4h day Of JanuaTy 1858 D'S''''' Oh Columbia
JOHN E. BEALL, Notary Public.
To the Committee the District of Columbia United
have aredy stated under oath that had no interest
whatever in the transaction as the sale of lot IL
square 154, by William Reading to j. L. Roxe throuyI,
James NJ. Latta, of the firm of Kilbourn Latta in
May 1915 and desire to fully state the cir
of that transaction in SO far as they relate tn
myself.
1t is true that was legally member of the firm of
kllboarn Lata from and after January l. 1871. but
Tie partnership agreement not made until Nav fol-
lowing. but it stipulated that my inte est should
begin from JaLuary LIST preceding
ME- Hlyer III bis charges AGAINST quotes the tes
Question 43.-When did Mr.. Olmstead if ever be-
in this firm and state what his interest
,o- Answer:-My recollection is that it was in May,
before the hnf was definitely settled permitted his
Mr. Reaang, in his letter published by Mr.. Hiuyer.
lot prepared by Mt. omstead their tKbo our
When was admitted into the firm did not become
in al the business then belonging it, but by
ipaton in certain transactions borne on the books of
what exact interests were. the firm to prepare
new sales book on which was entered the trarlsac
share This accordingly done and the book is here
evenc Of the to wc f"x Is a sde
es as an9sea and dd tho s fire oS
nTa as sGeh pner the 1ewshows that the 9th Of
the rn o In the en s1nds
co,nn st, for sale on commission;
except as Mr. Reading n ssrs no as
the deed d write letters dictates to me- 40
the firm. ~ O Va
Inever heard Of proposal tn have the deed made tn
me, and produce herewith the affidavit of Mr. Hodge
To- the same effect with the additional statement tiat
ms negotiation was exclusively with Mr. Latta and
that he had nothing whatever tn me in reference
to It, he sales book, which prepared for the pI,r
pose OF showing what property the firm was inter
ested H. was i'll effect part of partnership agree
Mnt and was prepared at the time before that agree
nent was cosummated and prior to the sale of said LOT
IA 10y Heading to Hodge. An inspection of thi. book
prepared neatly twelve years shows the said lot
was never entered it. but with others in which
had no interest was excluded from it.
J. F. OLMsTEAD.
Washington, d. c., Jan. 3. 1883.
To the Honorable the Chairman of the Senate co,n
Tnittee on the District Of Columbia:
Sir:-Referrng to the charges preferred BY c. J.
Hilyer, esq., against John F. Olmstead esq., relating
to the sale Of certain lot Of ground by William Read
ing to J. L. Hodge, beg to state, In addition to nv
former testimony, to the effect that Mr. Ometa had
no interest whatever in that ansaction that prior to-
or at the time Mr. Ostead admitted into the firm
OF K1lbourn Latta sales book showing the prope,ty
or transactions of the firm in which Olmstead was to
share was prepared by the frm rather two sales
books one for houses and the other or unim-
proved property that said books showed the trans
actions in which he had could claim any interest and
that inspection of said books will disclose that said
and conclusive evidence that said Olnstead had no
interest in that transaction Said books were prepared
before the said sale was made.
Very respectfully submitted.
Washington. D. c.. Jan. a 1879