The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-12-21
EXCORIATED.
Mcknight Roughly Handled
and WOrsted all Around.
FRAUDULENT SHOWING.
'He Ought to Retire from the Bar
or Reform His Future
Conduct"


District Court, the case of Rasmussen
and others against MacKnight ct al.
was resumed, and those in attendance
were expectant and curious to gaze up
OH the many of the thousand witnesses
whom the defendant James MacKnight
had said on Friday afternoon he could
procure and would bring into court to
testify as to his good character, etc.
But those who were, and there were a
few who were not, were doomed to dis
appointment. The array was not on
hand, though the court was assured
"many" had been in attendance
but had left, having other
business elsewhere. Two men, staunch
and true, were all the defendant called
upon, remarking when he had done so
That the testimony of one good, true.
honest man was better than myriad
of enemies, embittered by malice, etc.
JOHN ]. KELLY was the first. He
stated that he knew his reputation for
truth and veraclty was good and that
he would believe him under oath,
though he did not know his general re-
putation.
G. F. POTTER followed and believed
he would believe MacKnight under
oath, as he had never heard anything
derogatory of his character, which he
considered from his acquaintance to be
good.
ARTHUR Brown began an argument,
or statement of the case from his
standpoint, and in the time he
occupied he said a great deal which
his opponent keenly felt. In the course
OF his remarks he asked for a decree for
his client, Rasmussen, and then
the evidence. He claimed fraud was
delicate term to apply to the transac-
ton of MacKnight; that criminal
| forgery would be more fitting and appro-
pirate. His reference to the bargain
between Rasmussen and MacKnight,
terminating with the latter'S procuring
a true signature to a false paper was
cutting in the extreme He said he had
warned the defendant against proceed
ing in the matter; that no good would
come of it. The case stood out, he re-
marked, so plain that there could be no
question as to the transaction. The
two parties met and bargained as to
price; 800 was paid and the balance of
1910 was to be secured. How was it
secured? MacKnight drew up papers,
read them to Rasmussen, which ought
to have been from one grantOr, but the
deed was from Mrs. Mary Ann Mac
Knight, and the mortgage in the
This, with the difference in
dates and other certain marks and inter
lineationS gave them a suspicious look,
to say the least. And the witnessing
of both instruments by Barnum and
Hartley was also crooked, as the deed
and mortgage were differently dated,
vet those two men were at MacKnight's
Office only once. Intimating that it
WIS an easy matter to have slipped in a
Blank deed, or another, to have it
signed his words we're scathing and
highly sarcastic. Here were all the cir
cumstanceS of this case which, before a
petit jury would convict man OF
forgery.
Defendant MacKnight followed in
long, tedious, halting defense of himself
and his position in the transaction
under consideration. He referred to
Mr.. Browns insinuations as exhibitions
of animus, but they were consistent
with his trying to break down the testi-
mony of the defense. He pleaded that
he had been taken at disadvantage in
the beginning of this suit, without suf-
fcient notice and no witnesses in his be-
half; he had been forced into the trial.
He devoted considerable time, laid a
great deal of stress and quoted coplonsly
to impress uIon the Court that
there was no proof; that the fraud was
not proven and so the plaintiffs
case falls, on that score. If the deed
was valid it was genuine and
must stand and be accepted as having
due force, all its face implies. The plain
tiffs must prove its falsity. There was
no substitution of the deed, he stated,
and the one in evidence stood unim-
peached. The impeachment of his
character on Friday was mentioned,
and he read from decision in the Court
OF Appeals of Kentucky in the Reporter,
to show the extremities they, the plain
tiffs, were driven to establish their fab
relations. The animadversiOnS came
with bad grace from men whose char
acters were not beyond reprOach. They
were influenced by pure malice, and
malice was no criterion on which to
found correct judgment of character.
They had no present knowledge as to
his truth and veracity. The rule Is
founded in substantial justice that
man Sndu HOC DC lIllpSdCl1Su llOAH q
coterie of his enemies, but from his
friends, who are acquainted with him in
his everyday life. One true, honest
man was sufficient to overcome legion
of emissaries of his enemies.
When the speech and readings were
ended, a sigh escaped each of the listen
ers.
Mr.. Brown declined to reply, but re-
marked that he had no animosiJy; on
the contrary he acted in the whole
matter kindly; he had thought there
was fraud and was still of that opinion
The Chief Justice prefaced his decI-
sion of the case with a few words adj
dressed to the defendant. MacKnight,
which should have some effect on him.
one way or another. The judge briefly
reviewed the evidence, which he stated
proved that the deed of Mary Ann Mac
Knight was procured by fraud; that
the mortgage given by MacKnight
was no security, and a just law
and just judge would not sustain
the fraud. Judge Zane regretted that
member of the fraternity-an honor