St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-05-06
AT LAST.

N6DdIluIS, dllu Ulu IUG accompany uSI.
AT LAST.
Testimony all in in the King-Rem-
ingtOn Suits--The Arguments
Postponed.
The trial of the King Remington suit be-
gan yesterday morning with the cross-ex-
animation of L. F. Menage. The witness
stated that his negotiations with lines for
the purchase of the King property began in
December. 1881, and was conSummated
month later Innes first wanted 1892, 900,
but afterwards came down to 1896, 900. Mr..
Ball was to have third interest in the pro-
fits.
The witness was here croSS-examined as
to the estimates which he put upon the value
of the property included in the contract
which ran all the way from $50 to $500.
Concerning the sale to Willis Baker Mr..
Menage said it was rather in the nature of
al exchange of property; the consideration
in the deed was for S1S5, $50. He took in
exchange in part stock of goods at $50. 600
and mill at Lake City. There were 416
lots in the property transferred to Mr..
Baker, including all the lots south of Thirty
fifth street except three, also block SO, block
so, block 81, east half of blocks 81 and 81,
and blocks 46 and At. This was the most
salable, but perhaps not the most valuable
part of the property.
Continuing, the witness said he bought
part of the Window so Oct. 3, 1881, paying
S62, 900. This included all of the addition
except two blocks and the right of way of
the railroads. Witness was interested in
the profits of the purchase. He also had
an interest in the purchase Of a piece of
Blaisdelrs land, made Sept. 16, 1881.
THE PAYMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.
Upon being asked concerning the pay
ments to Remington upon the contract of
Jan. 81, 1882, Mr.. Menage said that great
many of them were in cash, and proceeded
to give, approximately, the amounts paid in
money and in mortgages. In October, 80,
he made to Charles n. Simms mortgages
aggregating SAG, 600, and received credit.
Nov. 1, 1888, he made mortgages to David
Lewis, amounting to 500, 600 and received
credit; did not remember any other mort
cages before he gave the S245, 600 mortgage.
The first payment in money was 81, 900,
April II, 1882; the next was 1888, May
10. 1882, in money. The next was SILL
1865. IA, June 3 of the same year; this pay
ment was made in cash received from he
SOlldGlOllS VI vi
through George William Ballou & Co. of Bos-
ton. The next payment was 81, 219.90,
July 49, proceeds from the sale of mort
cages negotiated through the same Boston
firm The next payment was Sept. 26,
S17.272.61. part of which came
from the negotiation of mortgages
upon the property. The next
payment was Oct. 7, $6,710.27: the money
probably came from the negotiation of mort
cages. The next payment was Oct.
81, 81, 037.50; the proceeds of some notes
given for the sale of the stock of goods at
Lake City. The next payment was Nov.
3. S14, 772.60, part of which witness Dor
rowed ON his note. Nov. "a, $50, 733. 67,
SAG, 800 Of which was the SimmS mortgage
and the balance was cash. Jan. II, 1884,
SIS, S13.34, part of which was borrowed on
notes. Jan. Is. S12, OS5. 80; Feb. s, g. $40;
Feb. -, 1885; witness did not know
where the money for these three payments
came from. March Z, S7,675. so: this was
from mortgage Of Col. McClary, which
was turned over to Nh, Remington. March
-, 81, 349. 80, from the negotiations of the
Brown, Sevey & Baker mortgages. The
other payments were: March 16, SIS, 600;
May IA, 81, 4S0; June 13, $685.; June IA,
IS, 900; June 81, 5000; July Z, 1000; July
Is, $4,000; Aug. II. $1,000; Sept 90,
So, 500; Oct. 10, SIS, 400; Nov. 1, 500, 000.
This last came from the Lewis mortgage.
The witness was asked what price he set
upon the land for park about the lake
when Col. King approached him,
and replied $500, and that King
only wanted to give $500. A long
discussion between the attorneys ensued at
this point over the objection raised by
Judge Shaw to the question as tohow much
of the land had been sold after the purchase
and prior to this action. The objection
was finally sustained by the court and
the croSS-eXaminatiOn closed.
OIn the redirect the witness said the
purchase of the Window, Stevens and
Blaisdell tracts was made at 81 900 pei
acre. In making the payments for them
the witness dealt directly with Col. Innes.
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE.
Mr.. Philo Remington was recalled by the
prosecution and asked when he first be-
came cognizant of the contract between
lines and Menage. The defense objected
upon the ground that this was not rebuttal
evidence. The court overruled the objec-
ton and Mr.. Remington answered that
when lines spoke about the sale to Menage
he mentioned that he might be obliged to
take an interest to effect the sale.
COL. KING REITERATEs.
Col. King was the next witness; testified
that he paid a judgment of Thomas. A.
Harrison against r. J. Mendenhall, Dor
rillus Morrison, George Fl. Bracket and
himself, using the money that he obtained
from Mr.. Remington. The judgment
against him by Charles B. King for S26, O2t
he paid in 1875 with notes obtained
from Remington. The Dawson judgment
for ST, 0O1.93 and the johnson & Smith
Judgment for 1892 he paid out of his OWL
funds. The witness denied that Innes ha6
told him Oct. II, 1879 that he had put il
the elevator lots in the quitclaim deeds exc
cuted at that time to satisfy some lawyer
He stated that Menage had asked 81, OOt
per acre for the land around Lake Harrie
proposed to be used for park. His atten
ton being called to an allegation in hi!
amended complaint in relation to the quit
claim deeds of 1877 and 1879 the colonel re
iterated his former statements
II. GO Morrison was recalled and de
ciad the statement of Col, InneS that h,