St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-04-25
THE FOURTH DAY.
Col. Kings Evidence Concluded ila
the King emington Suit.

Col. Kings Evidence Concluded ira
the King-Remington Suit.
The tedious grind Of the King Remington
suit was resumed yesterday morning in the
district court before Judges Koon and
Young, and the cross-eXamination of Col.
King was continued. The review of the
testimony progressed rather slowly, Judge
Shaw, the attorney for the defendants,
often stopping to consult or examine papers.
Efforts to entangle the witness were gener-
ally frultless. although he was occasionally
entrapped into making seeming cOntradic-
tons, when he either explained that there
was mistake, or else dismissed the matter
with wave of his hand and charged it up
to his poor memory.
The first question was as to the amount
OF his Indebtedness at the time he went
into bankruptcy, but concerning this Col.
King said he knew nothing more than what
the schedules show. From the time he put
the land into RemingtOn'S hands in 1875 he
endeavOred to dispose of the property, but
times were dull and the lack of improve
ment operated against the sale, therefore ne
made energetic efforts to improve the land.
After fixing the dates of the arrival of
lines and the turning over of the Pioneer
Press stock the
MOTOR LINE ONCE MORE
was reverted to. Col. King said the rail-
road was completed to Lake Calhoun in
1879, and was known then as the MinneapO-
lis & Lyndale railway. He had formerly
owned considerable stock in the street rail-
way company which passed out of his hands
about the time that Mr.. Lowry made his
concession that the motor line might be
built. Mr.. Lowry had by that time ac-
quired much larger proportion of the
stock, thus getting control. The right to
construct the road was secured in the fall
Of 1878.
The witness reiterated his statement that
he had always represented to lines that he
wanted his equities purchased and preferred
that Mr.. Remington should be the pur-
chaser; also his conversation with Mr..
Remington when the latter consented to
furnish money to help him out of his finan-
cial difficulties. He had asked Innes if he
thought Remington would be willing to step
out for $3.50. 600 for the purpose of obtaining
an expression as to what was really due
Remington. The witness said he did not
know Of the large sale to Aenage until
about the time of the commencement of this
action. lines, when asked about these
large transfers had evaded giving any ex-
PLANTATION, and merely said there were a
good many side plays about the deals.
The remainder OF the morning was con-
sumed i'll examination of the witness regard
ing the final interview which he had with
Philo Remington in 1884.
IN THE AFTERNOON
The cross-examination was resumed and
the witness stated that in 1882 he entered
into some negotiations with l.. f. Menage
in the interest of other parties concerning
the purchase of some land but never had
any correspondence with him. The defense
here offered a letter written by Mr.. King to
Menage in 1882 which was acknowledged
by the witness as his letter-he had for
gotten about it. This concluded the cross
On the redirect eXamna-
ton Col. King said the cost of the Pavilion
at Lake Calhoun was about SIG, 600, of
which So, 600 was his own money. In 1877
Mr.. Remington tried to get loan from the
Mutual Life Insurance company of Mil
waukee, and an appraisal of the hotel was
made at that time. This concluded Mr..
Kings testimony and
MRS. KING, THE PLAINTIFF,
was here put upon the stand. The ques-
tons put to her related only to the signing
of the quitclaim deeds in 1878. Her story
of the occurrence agreed substantially with
that of her husband. Her only idea when
she signed the deed was that it was to cor
rect some infonnality or error in the de-
scriptiOn, and had no knowledge that it in
cluded a REIMBURSEMENT to any other prop
erty besides the elevator lots. Mrs. King
Il .I.a !; 4
property with that of her husband to Mr..
Remington in 1875, as she thought that Mr.
Kings property was ample security, but
had finally yielded.
OTHER TESTIMONY.
Charles Heffellinger testified to the Sign
ing OF the deed by Mr. and Mrs King: heard
Col. King tell his wife in the presence of
Col. lines that the deed was simply to
correct some informality in the paper.
Charles ii. Clark, the next witness. testi-
fed that he was also present at Col. Kings
residence when the deed was signed. lie
heard the colonel tell Mrs. King that the
deed was only to correct an error, and was
certain that Col lines assented by saying
That's ALL" He was in the Of
fee of Col. King and Col Innes
good deal in the spring
of 1873, being associated with Col. King in
conducting fairs. He had often heard In
mes talk of Col. Kings interest in this prop
erty and once heard him object 10 a change
in the location of Col. Kings office for the
reason that they should be together 80
they could consult regarding the property"
WHAT MAJOR BROWN KNOWS.
d. d. 5. Brown of Rochester. y. Y, was
next put on the stand. He testified that he
was the agent of Mrs. Melvina Boswell in
1876, when Col. King came to him for as
Sistance in procuring a loan of about S15,-
600 on lands in Minneapolis. He sold some
bonds belonging to Mrs. Boswell for Sc 500
and loaned that amount on the elevator lots.
The certificate of the mortgage sale on
those lots was assigned from Mary S. Tuck
ernan to Mrs. Boswell In 1882. in re-
Spouse to a request from Col. InneS. Mrs.
Boswell executed 4 conveyance of this
property TO Mr.. Remington and the
loan was renewed on other security.
The witness said that at the time he ad-
viSed Mrs. Boswell to execute the deed to
Remington that he forgot for the time be-
ing the previous contract, whereby the prop
erty was TO have been conveyed back to
Col. King. Col. King paid the first six
months interest and after that the interest
was paid by Remington through Innes. 4
number of letters from InneS to Brown were
introduced to show that the interest was
paid by lines from time to time.
DISTRICT COURT BRIEFS.