Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-08-19

Interesting Parffeuiars 81 Q Mueh
Discussed Preceeding,

Otec0s3c0 RFecteuiu&s
Much has been said in the ChronicLe
about an alleged perjury committed by
Mr.. s. E. Strickland in swearing 70 an
affidavit attached to q complaint in
salt brought by him against George T.
Smith, JEFF Smith and Joseph Borst,
partners as Smith Bros. & Co., aud Wal
ter A. Boil and Benjamin L. Snipes-
This suit was brought TO subject certain
property worth $75,000. which ID claimed
TO have teen turned over by Smith
Brothers Il Co. TO Bull and Snipes snder
= fraudulent agreement to the payment
of debt Of $4,000 due from Smith
Brothers & Co. to certain merchants in
San Francisco, the assignors OF Mr..
Strickland. The Chronicle calls Mr..
Snipes the cattle king of Eastern Ore
gon, and represents hin as very
wealthy man. We have inquired into
this matter. and in justice 20 Mr. Striok-
laud propose TO state the facts. Mr..
Strickland claims that the publication
IN the Chronicle was a scheme on the
part of Mr.. Snipes to forestall public
opinion and to prejudice the plaintiff 8
case in court. The fact that the article
IL one sided aud distorted, taken ia
connection with the mercenary charac-
ter of the editor in chief of that delec-
table sheet, justifes the conclusion.
Mr.. Suipes is a resident of Oregon
and Mr.. Strickland of San Francisco
and Mr.. Boil resides in Eliensburg. Mr..
Strickland came to Seattle about the
first of July and before bringing suit
had q conversation With Mr.. George F..
smith. one of the dsfendaLts. In III It
conversation Smith made the folio wing
statement, in the presence of witnesses.
He said: that in December, 1888, the
tirm of smith Brothers Il Co. were in
debted to merchants in Portland. Ore
gon, in the SUM of $4,000 and that at
the same time they owed merchants 10
San Francisco over $4,000. and that
they owed other persons ovor 5000, all
of which sums were unsecured; that
they also owed Ladd, in Portland, up
wards of $4,000. which was secured by
a mortgage on their real estate In kitti-
tass county; and that they also owed
Ben. L. Snipes $4,000 on a confessed
judgment, which was lien on the same
real estate, for cattle sold to them; that
in the latter part of December, 1888,
their Portland creditors jumped upon
and attached their store in Ellensburg;
that they were afraid that their San
Francisco creditors would come upon
them also; that they had no ready mon
ey to meet this claim; that one David
Murray was friend of theirs and that
they turned their property, consisting OF
cattle and merchandise, worth $75 600,
over &c him under an agreement tn 1t he
would satisfy their Portland creditors
who had attached and would manage
their business until they could make
arrangements with their other creai-
tors and then he was to return their
property to them; that under this
agreement Mr.. Murray took possession
of their property and undertook to run
the business, ostensibly for himself but
really for them that he managed their
business badly, got all their customers
mad at him, and that their customers
were leaving the store and trading
elsewhere, and that they saw that
they would have to make diff
ferent arrangements that Bull was a
friend of theirs and Snipes, and had
been in with them in cattle deals that
they agreed with Snipes and Bull to turn
all their property held by Murray over to
Bull, il Snipes would satisfy the Port
land creditors, and let Bull run the
business until Snipes' debt and the
Portland creditors were paid off that
Snipes and Bull agreed to this. and that
Bull gave his note for about $35. 600 to
Snipes, in full payment of all they owed
Snipes and the Portland creditors; that
Bull agreed to take the business in place
of Murrry, carry it on ostensibly for
himself, but in reality for Smith Bros.
& Co.. and in less than two years work
them out Of their difficulty aud return
the property to them ; that under this
agreement property worth over $1,000
WAS turned over to Bull to paw Snipes
x35, 900 on the note given by Bull, and
this property, 80 turned over. was In re-
Atty the property of Smith Bros. d Co.
Mr.. Smith further stated that Bulls
property other than that turned over by
them 10 hixa was mortgaged by Bull for
all that il was worth.
Mr.. Strickland says that he AIDE en-
quiry about Snipes aud his financial
standing. From that inquiry he came
to the conclusion that Snipes had no
other property in the Territory save the
smith Bros. property; and that his
financial standing and his business
character that he believed Snipes had
no other property.
Relying upon the statements made by
Smith and the inquiries made by him,
he stated his case to his attorneys,
White Il Munday and j. X. Lewis, and
was advised by them that the transfer
kx,A q
the unsecured creditors, and that bill
in equity would lie for the appointment
of receiver to take possessions of such
property. That his attorneys prepared
\ complaint in equity for him, and that
therein the following statement occurs:
That said Walter A. Bull and Benja-
min Z. Snipes are wholly irresponsible,
and neither of them has any property,
other than that which they hold under
the conspiracy agreement aforesaid"
That he swore he believed said state
ment to be true; that at such time he
did believe, and does still believe,
said statement to be true. He
never at any time swore positive
iy that Messrs. Bull q Snipes had
no property. That fact is yet to be
proven in court. In the complaint
uuafEiuk NiE. otftckthuQ Win perjury,
Mr.. Snipes nowhere says that Mr..
Strickland did not believe the charges
made by him TO be true. The court
held that no crime whatever was charged
against Mr.. Strickland that to honest
ly swear TO his belief Of fact alleged
vas not perjury in any sense of the
word that the District Court regarded
this case as one Of fraud can be inferred
from the fact that it appointed a re-
ceiver and refused TO discharge him uu-
less Mr.. Ball gave bonds in the sum of
$1,000, being 5000 more than Mr..
Strickland claims, for a return of the
property on the final trial of the case, if
such return should he adjudeed.
As soon as MIR. Strickland was dis
charged from the perjury case, he at
once instituted suit against Snipes for
$4,000 damages, in swearing TO the per-
Jury complaint and causing his unjusti-
fable arrest. In order 10 avoid service
OF these papers, Mr.. Snipes, at the hour
OF midnight. left his wife and family al
the Occidental Hotel aud escaped from
King eoanty on horseback by way of
the Snoqualmie Pass, thereby practic-
ally confsssing that his arrest of Mr..
Strickland was an nniussifiahle act.
Mr.. Strickland saws that he will pros
ecute his suit for false imprisonment TO
fha fuil xfaut ~ tha Ia ~