Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-31
SUED FOR LIBEL.
Edward Austin brings salt Against
the Tribune - for $4,000.


Court, and sets forth very fully the
grievances of Mr.. Edward Austin against
the Salt Lake Tribune, who, as will be
seen, prays for judgment and damages to
the extent of $4,000. The public will
not have forgotten the articles which APP
peared in the Tribune last January and
in which the character and reputation OF
Mr.. Austin are brought into question.
The following is the complaint in full and
embodies those parts OF the Tribune arti-
ces on which the charge Of libel is based:
In the District Court of the Third Judicial
District of Utah Territory, Salt Lake County.
Edward Austin, Plaintiff,
u.s.
Tribune Publishing Co., Defendant.
The said plaintiff complains of the said
That defendant was at all times herein
after mentioned and now is n corporation
incorporated and doing business under the
laws Of Utah Territory.
That on the thirteenth day of January, A.
D., 1885, ut Salt Lake City in Utah Territory,
called the Salt Lake Daily Tribune, a libelous
article of and concerning plaintiff, in GER
tain part of which said article was and is
contained the following, to-wit: Edward
Austin, late manager of the defunct London
Bank Limited) rs agent and attorney
scooped n lone woman before he took his
departure for Europe" That defendant
meant thereby that plaintiff while acting as
agent and attorney of woman, namely,
Sarah j. Williams, had cheated and de-
frauded her of her money and property.
And in n certain other part of which said
nd 10 fai n ha foil nxu-
ing, to-wit: "In 1880, while Mr.. and Mrs.
Austin were on their way from Liverpool to
New York en- route to take charge of the
London Bank of Utah, they met and formed
the acquaintance of lady who resides in
Massachusetts,. Learning that this lady had
some money she was loaning and aiming to
live off the interest of the same, a friendly
correspondence was kept up until such times
rs Austin was ready to manipulate affairs to
his interests. In 1881, he commenced in
forming this lady that much higher rates of
interest were obtained here than would be
realized on Government bonds, namely, 10
per cent, and even moro with good real
estate security. Under the flattering induce
ments held out, the lady agreed to lend the
money as wanted, and from time to time
various sums were loaned until $4,000 were
invested"
That by Mr.. and Mrs. Austin therein
named defendant meant this plaintiff and
his wife, and by lady who resides in Massa-
chusetts defendant meant the aforesaid
Sarah j. Williams, and defendant meant
thereby that plaintiff, for the purpose of
swindling, cheating and defrauding the said
Sarah j. Williams out of her money and for
the purpose of appropriating and using the
same for his own benefit he fraudulently,
deceitfully, and under the guisc of friendship
inveigled her into intrusting her said money
in his hands for his own use and benefit
rather than for hers.
And in n cnrtnin othpr mart nf uni1 nrtioIa
there was and is contained the following, to-
wit: "Then Mr.. Austin asked for loan on
his own account, giving his note and putting
up shares of the bank as security. In time
Mr.. Austin notified the lady that he no
longer desired to use the funds and asked
her to return him the note and shares and
he would reloan it and, as she expected, re-
turn her the notes with the proper mortgages
as security. But instead of this, on certain
occasions he would send a statement that he
had loaned this one and that one certain
amounts for which he held the notes and
securities. The lady, not liking this kind of
business, frequently called his attention to
the fact that she desired the notes etc. sent
to her, but i'll his replies to business he over
looked this and never referred to it, but still
held on to the represented notes. That by
MIR. Austin therein named defendant meant
this plaintiff, and by lady meant the said
Sarah j. Williams, and defendant meant
thereby that plaintiff, while acting as the
agent and attorney of the said
Sarah J. Williams in making loans
of money for her, fraudulently and
for the purpose of cheating and de-
frauding her, wrongfully refused and omit
ted to send to her the notes and securities
upon which her money was loaned"
And in certain other part of which said
article there was and is contained the fol-
lowing, to-wit SIN August last that lady
lmeaning the said Sarah ]. Williams) wrote
him (meaning the plaintiff) that she had use
for some money and requested him to return
her $1,000. On the Sd of September he sent
her LOCO (but by some means the sum
failed to reach her until recently and not
hearing from him as promptly as she liked,
concluded to visit Utah and see how her
matters stood. On her arrival here some
ten days ago, to her great surprise found
Mr.. Austin had gone to England, and she
became alarmed. Looking over her papers
she made out list of her supposed credit
ors and began calling on them. Two of the
tact but the interest was collected by Austin
up to the date of his departure.
Then she met some to whom
Mr.. Austin represented he had loaned
the $1,000 which he had himself originally,
but to her great surprise the parties denied
having her money or even having given Mr..
Austin their note, payable to Mr.. Austin's
order or the lady's. 1t then became appa-
rent that something more than a careless
business way was at the bottom of it all.
She made the rounds, and found in one case
where Austin had sent her the mortgage and
not the note, although repeatedly requested
to do 80; that he had, Just previous to his
departure for Europe, collected the amount
of note of 81 100, and had by his power of
attorney cancelled the mortgage on the
county records. In another case, where the
parties had given note and mortgage for
5000, he demanded payment, and they not
being able to meet 1t, he accepted part
5000. In this case the lady held the note
and mortgage herself. In every case he col
iected the entire interest up to the time he
left. In round numbers, it is calculated
Austin (meaning the plaintif) got over
5000 of this lady's (meaning the said Sarah
j. Williams) money, in principal and inter
est that he has collected belonging to her."
And defendant meant thereby that plaintiff
had embezzled over eight thousand dollars
OF the money of the said Sarah j. Williams.
And In certain other part of said article
there was and is contained the following, to-
wit: HE (meaning plaintiff) also induced
her (meaning the said Sarah j. Williams) to
invest in some mining stocks, of which she
agreed to take some and did, among them
LOCO shares of the Mammoth mine at So. 80
per share, when he was well aware of the
condition of the property, and
when he was buying this same stock at 40
ond on cents per share, or in other words, he !
turned over to the lady what cost him not
over $3.50 for SO, 750-a clear steal of 5000,
as he had the lady's money for Investment
ut the time"
And in another part of which said article
there was and is the following, to-wit:
''There is one thing that looks as though
Austin (meaning plaintiff) anticipated per-
sonal action against him on some accounts. |
After the bank was attached, as the records
show, he transferred all his real estate in /
this city to his wife, and later ON, when a