The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-12-20
4 sHYsTER's SCALP,
a,cKnight's Locks bangle
h'f from the Belt Of Brown
v.IODOROUS REPUTATION.
s+ Defends His Own Case-A
haolA t.'focqer for a Lawyer, and
'Tettifsgger for \ Client
v.IODOR0US REPUTATION

Yesterday afternoon, the attention OF
,.NfIrstice Zane, members Of the bar
nerties interested was occupied by
a. o., hearing Of the case Of Rasmussen
w theirs against James MacKnight ct
The morning had been taken up by
- o. o-ouments on defendants motion
. ~ noa-suit, which was overruled and
a W. taken thereto.
The case appears to be founded upon
49,. oueeations that Rasmussen had a
- Of property he wanted to sell for
t,-o and that MacKnight bought it, CIV
aSlo1 down and note and mortgage
&c the rest, but that there appeared
- and crookedness in the drawing
nnof he last named. The defendant
laimed that he mad put Improvements
mon the place to the extent of 500 or
eioo and that he would relinquish the
r,opersv upon payment OF that sum.
The main interest in the latter half OF
+he dav conferred in the statement of
Tho defendant, MacKnight, who at
some con length went on to say that on
~ obout the 10th of March, 1881,
10 Visited Rasmussen, who wanted to
coll certain piece Of property in
he Eleventh Ward, on Third South,
batween Eight and Ninth East, for
SS5O. that he paid 500 down and was to
rive a note for the balance, without in
Terest. that while he was negotiating
the purchase of said property, ne made
a deed and a mortgage, the latter of
which his wife refused to sign, because
she had had considerable difficulty in
litigation matters, and wanted no more;
that the two instruments were dated
differently, though drawn up at the same
lime why lie could not explain; that
Mr.. Rasmussen had accepted the note
as sufficient; that he Mack had made
some improvements the prop -rty and
in doing so he had expended some S4OO
OF $500; that subsequently he wanted TO
return the property TO the plaintiffs, If
the latter would pay him for the I'M
provements made; that he assured the
plaintiff that the note was good for four
years, upon which he appeared to be
content; that he Informed Rasmussen
that As soon as he refunded the money
expended for improvements he would
let him have the property back again.
Some time after Macknight received
from plaintiff q notice of the beginning
OF suit TO fOrecloSe the mortgage; n had
a conversation with his vile. during
which he advised her not to relinquiSh
the property until payment was made
for the improvements. He considered
the agreement between them valid and
proceeded with the improvements; they
had not been paid for; he, how
ever, stopped on them as soon as the
were issued in the present
case. All he wanted before giving up
the property, was to be refunded, as he
thought it nothing but equitable, fair
and just. When he read the deed and
mortgage over to Rasmussen he did so
IN the spirit and meaning of both, and
when Mr.. Pepper looked at them, he
said: Il guess that's all right; if you
are satisfied, am" Macknight sign
ed the mortgage ~ the request of Ras-
and the latter took the note for
the rest. The defendants wife, he said,
was willing to get out of the trouble and
would agree to any reasonable comDro-
mise to do 30.
The defendant here went on to state
what he understood his wife was viii
ling to Go and had said, when the
Judge called TO his mind that he was on
the stand to testify only to facts.
Mr.. Brown then took hold of the wit
ness-defendant and by a course of rigid
questioning and MISUNDERSTANDING pro-
ceeded to elicit the why's and where
torres in connection with the making
out, signing and dating of the deed and
mortgage, during which, it WAS learned
: s ,5I Macknight paid the instalIment OF
SIVJ Out OF his own means: that Ras-
IA lR9Ssen was at his Office once; that he
NNachnGh0 drafted the papers in his
presence that both were read to Mr..
upper; that lie was not certain
wnether they We're both signed at the
Ine or rot; that the mortgage was
Mr.. BRowN-I-n'ti it a fact that you
laq TWO deeds; that YOU went with one
. roper and read that to him, return
81 TO Your Office and had the other
signed?
AACkNIGET-No. sir.
Q.-Nas Rasmussen present when
ney were being prepared?.
A.-Tes.
Q;-Were they signed when YOU were
Il Peppers? Mo.
Did you read them Rasmussen?
Q.IDidn' | YOU tell him YOU was hay
hg the deed made to your wife and that
'ou would give him the mortgage back?
A.-No, sir. JON
here followed a series of interror:
orleS regarding who were present when
ne acknowledgment was made. m +o
WY WAen he made this nprtgace En-
urs' mcknight he did not insert her
la-ue as h3me appearing); why he
sIOIe the word him III the cOns;,lera-
ION ION Clause i the Instrument was in
e-Iue9 Tor LIS Vile, because of 4 new
~ SalA, made after Mrs. MacKnight's
eluSaI 10 SiEa the mortgage: thai be
ave RASMUSSEN the paper and did ~
Hlio" Wig 1LSt Z MAS 40 lien upon the
, Didn't You give 1t TO him becauso
No. sir" -O property
Why give him mortgage that was
'or ~! i have no reason > -
81, D .I you think that Rasmussen would
he ne 9;, PfQ2er5y and beneat you by the
y hat security had your" "Some
-'i;i t,id property at Camp Flovd and
b I,s.-e .Coo1toEWGood; but he didn't want
4i d use SO he took The mortgage.
II r zen was the mortgage signed ?''
lnowledged. " 'ieO "heh &C
WY sign mortgage any DIV o+,,o.