St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-08
Senator Herman Blandly and Gracefully
Winds Up the Case For the
Defense.
Congressman Van Voorhts Pours Hot
Broadsides Into Innes and
Remington.
As He Tells of the Deep Damnation
OF the Plot Laid to Defraud
Col. King.
The King-Remington Suit.

AlOSb VI TIC COQuOg. was W opNftR
for the defense, being an inducement sufh-
Gent to draw many attorneys to the court
house. The senator spoke briefly and to
the point occupying about two hours. His
argument was generally regarded as an able
effort and, calculated TO bring into
stronger light some of the points upon
which the case for the defense hinges.
Some of the principal features of his argu-
ment conciSely stated are as follows:
The court in deciding the case must go
back to the time the conveyance was made
and endeavOr to understand as fully as pos
sible the position of the parties at that time.
The plaintiffs at first were content to call
the transfer from King to Remington a
mortgage, but now claim that it was deed
in trust. We claim that it was a mortgage
and that Philo Remington was at the same
time a MORTGAGE and creditor. Reming-
ton did not take charge Of the land until
KING WENT INTO BANKRUPTCY
and in all equity could procure the land at
the sale without violating any duty. He
needed to get an equity of redemption in
order to acquire a perfect title and had a
right to purchase at the sale.
Kings right to redeem has been cut off
by our acquiring title, and he has no right
to establish except by parol agreement.
Assuming that such agreement existed, and
that Col. King believed his property worth
what is stated. then the fact that he in
duced Remington to buy in the property to
defraud his creditors will prevent either
party from establishing any claim to the
property. The statutes governing parOl
agreements were created for the purpose of
preventing men from differing about their
bargains.
The application of the case of Ryan &
DOX was here argued at considerable length,
the counsel claiming that it differed from
the present case in that here there is no
substantial act of part performance. Since
the bankruptcy sale Mr.. Remington has
gone on making cOnveyanceS by warrant,
while Mr.. King has had little more to do
with the property than might be expected
of him to help Remington out. King has
lost nothing unless it was the chance in a
future speculation.
KING HAS ACTED INCONSISTENCY
since 1878. There were large sales of the
property reported in the newspapers. He
says he went TO InneS and made inquiry
about them. lines may have naturally
declined TO disclose, being an agent, but
why didn't King 90 to Philo Remington,
whom he knew and trusted. That would
have been the natural course for him to have
taken in 1850 and 1852. Instead, however,
he waited until he was prepared to COM
mence this suit and when Remington re-
fused TO give him back his property he
stepped into a telegraph Office and sent
word to ''file the papers. Nothing can be
done" lines and Remington have acted
consistently throughout, and have gone on
selling, apparently not thinking that King
would claim any title.
As to Mrs. Kings claim the legal pre-
sumption is that the Deed of 1879 was cor
rect. King had given her the land, and it
was natural that when his friend Reming-
ton was suffering she should be willing to
include her property with that of her hus-
band. In the original complaint there
was no suggestion of misrepresentation,
but in the amended complaint they find it
necessary to set up that there was a mistake
in the execution of the deed to ali of Mrs.
Kings lands. Two interested witnesses
and two others testify very indefinitely that
Mr.. and Mrs. King signed this deed suppOS-
ing it TO be something else. How much
are titles worth if they can be upset upon
such testimony as this? After six years,
during which Remington had handled
Kings property, the plaintiffs come in and
set up, first, that that there was
4 parOl agreement; second, we didn't
know what we were doing. We
claim that there is complete failure
TO establish the probability OF either fraud
or misrepresentation. Col. InneS denies it
on oath, and was before these people six
years, putting his deeds to the property on
record, and yet there was not one word of
complaint. There is no evidence
that Mr.. Remington knew that
the Pioneer Press stock belonged
to Mrs. King, as it never stood in her name.
Concerning the Seattle property, L only
wish to say that there is nothing in cOnnec-
ton with the transaction which reflects dis
credit upon Mr.. Remington.
IT'S DUE PHILO REMINGTON,
who is to some extent q stranger in your
community, to say that he has done nothing
to warrant some of the things which have
been said of him here. He was reluctant
to take Mr.. Kings property, but did it to
Oblige him. After the bankruptcy sale he
believed he had good title, and no one said
any different He is now in an unfortunate
position, with his warTantys ON one side and
this claim for an accounting on the other.
He had right to be liberal with Mr.. lines
if he chose. He saw Col. King occasion
ally, but the latter never referred TO q set
Element. He may have been unwise, but
he did nothing Intentionally wrong. He
got the title to the lands for S25, and this
was only cheap mode of getting equity of
redemption. He had right to bid at the
sale, and this deed of 10 was not obtained
by fraud.
The plea of Mr.. Herman concluded the
argument for the defense, and adjournment
was taken for dinner.
THE OTHER SIDE.
In the afternoon Hon. John Van Voorhis.
the distinguished attorney from Rochester,
y. Y. commenced his argument for the
plaintiff. He swas very earnest in his de-
meanOr, and gave the impression that, as
he said, he meant business" Without
any appearance OF excitement, he pro-
ceeded to denounce the motives of Reming-
ton and InneS in language more Sc
we're than had yet been spoken
in the case. In starting out, ne
said the efforts of Mr.. Herman
had been confined to endeavoring to make
objections stick. He expressed his gratif-
alton at the Endorsement Of Col. Kings
honesty by Senator Herman, and paid the
argument of Judge Shaw high compli-
ment, remarking that so much learning was
worthy of a better cause. The plaintiff
has presented substantial facts, and the de-
PENDANTS have cOntented themselves with
raising certain technical objections. Be
cause an attorney employed by the plain
tiffs had made a wrong deduction of the
law in the original complaint, the defend
ants had sought to establish an inconsist-
ency in the complaint. The policy of the
defendants has been one of cOncealment.
They have concealed from Col. King every
dollar, and refused to let him see the books.
Nor would they produce the books in court,
well knowing that in these is written
THE DEEP DAINATIoN
of the plot of lines and Remington. They