St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-03

NSD~AtDAAS llailc-
ferred. The correction was to satisfy Mr..
Elliot as to the correctness and validity of
his title. Remington was given the right
by the conveyance to mortgage the land,
and Mrs. King, without waiting for the
court TO compel her, gave her lands TO him
that he might secure himself by mortgag-
ing them.
WHO WAS PERJURED?
Mr.. Wilson then turned TO the deed of
1879 and said il was the conveyance under
which defendant claimed all of her prop
erty and the question was more to decide
who had committed perjury. THE first
deed" he said. ''only conveyed half of
the undivided half of the lots conveyed,
when it was intended to convey the half,
and that is why the second deed was de-
sired. There is the truth as stated by Mr..
Innes in the freshness of the case before
he found it necessary to tell a falsehOod 10
secure his ill-gotten lands. In the second
answer hines says the correction was de-
sired to change the deed and that shows
where Innes' statements are conflicting.
Mr.. Innes, his hand uplifted 10 Almighty
God to tell the truth, stands up on one side
against Mr.. and Mrs. King, Mr.. Heffelhnger
and others, denying every word they say.
The idea is prepOSterous that they could
eXtinguiSh Mrs. Kings rights without pay
ing her dollar"
He said Mr.. King wrote in a hand
''broader and heavier than Col. King. (which
explained 1.-The signature in another ink so
often alluded TO. These lands were held by
the assignee, mOrtgaged 10 Remington.
Mrs. King could have compelled foreclOS-
IRE sale to pay her husbands debts. and if
Remington bought them they would be sub
ject to Mrs. Kings equity. Mr.. Wilson
claimed M no anfif1aI 70 fha alavasnr lots
standing in the name of Innes, and the
mortgage should be paid by Mr.. Remington.
He recited the history of the ten acres Of
Mendenhall property, charging Innes with
fraud in securing it, as he had not dollar
in 1t and Remington nothing but the inter-
est he has paid. He asked that the two lots
sold to McCrory be returned to Mrs. King,
as he gave no consideration for them.
IN THE AFTERNOON
Mr.. Wilson resumed his argument, first
referring to the Stevens eighty and giving
the history of the transactions affecting
that tract. Remington received from King,
among other lands. this tract. upon which
was the Stevens mortgage. Having taken
the equity OF redemption and having con-
scented that Mr.. Stevens might use the abb
sOlute title TO raise money, Mr.. Wilson
claimed that it is incompetent for Reming-
Il NDn W NllAC w AO0~on VI AAAAo hNh
mortgage which Mr.. Stevens had given
with his consent In this connection the
evidence of Mr.. Stevens and his wife, w. ).
King and Philo Remington was reviewed
A letter written by lines was also referred
to, in which an acknowledgment Is made
of Kings interest in the property after the
bankruptcy sale. There has been great
deal of talk, said Mr.. Wilson, about the
gigantic financial burden borne by Mr..
Remington, but / can show that the
Stevens eighty and all the other lands have
carried themselves so that Remington, in
stead of continually paying out money TO
keep the lands, was getting back his ad-
VanceS
The evidence concerning the ManwarTing
| tract. one-half Of which was included in the
original deed of 1875 and the other half
omitted, was reviewed. The AmeS forty
was next considered, and it was shown that
as with the Stevens eighty the tracts had
more than carried themselves. Hav-
ing discussed the transactions con-
corning these tracts to which an
independent title is claimed by the
defendants, by reason of foreclosure of
mortgage, Mr.. Wilson turned TO two judg-
mentS, known as the johnson and the Lake
City judgments, under which an extra and
superior title is claimed. His argument
here went to show that the titles, by virtue
of the sales under these judgments, were no
stronger than if Mr.. King had conveyed
them in the original deed.
THE SALE To MENACE
does not materially affect Mrs. Kings claim.
! This sale of June 81, 1882, was for $780,
600, of which Remington received only
! 500, 900 in the shape of a mortgage. Col
Kings debts at this time only amounted to
1888. 600, so they were fully paid, and Mrs
Kings position is not materially affected
thereby.
The contract of July %, 1882, was next
considered. under which Col. Innes under
! takes to obtain 5000, 600 in addition to So
| 600 per year and expenses for services ren-
dered. Upon what meat hath our Cesar
fed that he should grow so great and re-
ceive so much pay? Here he was petty
clerk of Mr.. Remington's, receiving so
| small n compensation that il wasn't cOnsid-
cred worth while to fix a salary. He came
out here simply TO watch these lands until
their value should be increased by the
growth of the country. We knew that
there was something more than services
in this deal, so we went TO Lion, and one
warm day we unearthed the hidden African.
We dragged out OF Mr.. Remington
that there was a secret contract
was TO give back one-half the swag and
plumber TO Mrs. Remington. This was the
scheme Of InneS and Hanna, and PhilO
Remington. actuated by the ayarice which
sometimes cvertakeS old age, became their
tool. Lord knows there wasn't lawyer in
the plot. for he would have known that a
court OF equity would never allow lines to
take this vast property as back pay" 1t
was done by some weak layman 10 make
common partition OF Spoils.
WHAT MRS. KING SHOULD RECEIVE.
After claiming that the Seattle transaction
should not be allowed 10 enter into the case,
| Mr. Wilson concluded his argument in the
case as far as Caroline NJ. King is con-
cerned. with a general statement as 10
| what she is entitled to. He included the
Mendenhall ten. the elevator lots, six lots in
Remington's subdivision now held by lines,
the Pioneer Press stock, which was
sold for $780, 1O, with interest,
also her property which was sold for
| S9l, 500. Mr.. Wilson now took up the suit
of
W. S. KING,
with the remark that they had been travel
ing over summer seas thus far in comparison
with what is 10 come. Mr.. Kings case
does not differ materially from that of Mrs.
King, but there are complications which
may make the examination more difficult.
the original transaction between King and
Remington was more than a mortgage. II
was a trust. However, let the defendants
call il a mortgage. We have gone further.
King gave TO Remington his entire property
to do with as if it was his Own-tO hold it.
sell it, or to mortgage il, and by that token
made Philo Remington trustee of all that Is