The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-04-25
me IN THE COURTS.
y Suit Against Thomas Burke
and Others.
LIONS SAID TO BE INVOLVED.
!. e.eAer sues His son--The Equity Court
Hsrsebsck-G. Morris Hsller's
Estate Divided.

( suas.n ". B<lviu and Rebecca Belvin. his
3. veenefdsy brought suit in the superior
~ eeaiust Thomas Burke. John J. McSiIvYa,
~ Boys and A. A. Denay. Ia . csse fnvolv.
~ruperty valued In the complaint u over
- embracing the whole Of the Denny h
H-e edition 10 the city Of Seattle. The his
~ "a nature ct the case - set forth Ia the
sss.rlains may be outlined ~ follows: On the
RI 81 July, 1888. catharine Johnson and her
49,. william Johnson. conveyed 70 Thomas
S.1n = undivided one-sixta interest In tract
SGk q ecres OF land 10 the east one-half Of the
1870 quarter of section tnsrtesn. wnshi-
- I've north, range three east. W. n, and
$3.50 one-haif OF the southwest quarter. and
r. lhrpe, section eighteen. township twenty
= eefth, rargs four east. W. ~ On the LIST Of
nher lss. Jacob n. strickler. owner Of an
~11ysded onesixih OF the same tract, also
~wged his interest to Thomas
- At the time Of these couveyances
s11ouss Burke, william W. Beivin paid one
80 Of the purchase price. and Thomas
- J. .. Netcalf and B. =. Day each paid .
~rrnf. John J. Me6ilvra performed some
s1gipeu IN procuring the purchase and sale Of
- "a. end acquired m interest In It 1t Was
- between Burke, McGilvra and Beiysn
= ~ deed should be held in the name OF
80 Burke for the benefits and uses Of eli
nauonbers Of the syndicate, holding undi-
~ shsfes ~ follows: w. w. Beivin, three
1917 Of the undivided third; J. j. Nc
- oae- fourth: B. r, Day. fhree-sixteenshs;
III Neecaif three sixteenths, and Thomas
-. shreosixteenths. II was agreed that no
hkenld - made without the consent OF eli
- 1ngttes interested. Tne plaintiff found 10
10y y Issvs the territory on business in
y, -. and did not setnrn until March.
= r. sAsus that Mr.. Burke knew Of his
l>noslcsta I'll this time. snd that he received
nnsalcattons fr ON him from tims 70 time !.
g July I, 1851. the plaintiff alleges Burke,
nntfine with J. J. McGilvra, John r. Hoyt
p 4 A. Denny. fled . complaint in equity in
~ Mid Judicial district Of Warrington agatnst
- v1ainuG and other owncn OF various inter-
- pmgias for partition Of this tract Of land.
- Dat he same might be sold at public out
q snd the proceeds divided. The plaintiff re-
Md 10 notice Of these proceedings, nor had
- knowledge OF them, aud the court. on the
= 4 eeptember. 1857, caused the default OF the
ldnfiH 70 Be entered In the case. On October
i'm. the court entered decree ordering the
NJ the land, appointing Ebeu Smith referee
n iand was sold to A. A. Denny and John p.
ngtier 0s.s4i.ss, price grossly inadequate,
oscnplaint alleges.
Ms charged that prior to said sale Burke, Me-
oaym, Day and Metcalf conspired not to bid At
ossie, and agreed that the title shouid be held
4psaDy and Hoyt in trust To keep people
~ biddins. IL IL alleged. that they
Galed publiciy that no valid title
rsA b. oven. In November. 1857. the
~ oedssed distribution Of the funds arising
~ sch sale, slIoting Belvin 1I.l2A75, which
nnained In the custody OF the clerk without
~ knowledge of Belvin until Feb 70. 1858.
~ plaintiff IVES then in Cincinnati. and be-
lDsisg that II was Al right ordered Jacob
luth 70 draw tho money and receipt for 10 Zoe
N ", Burke returned the IS. 396 20 to Hoyt
tDsany, Il Is alleged. The present value OF the
knd d q, al 500, aud the value of three-six
hes1hs Of oae-third OF IL u ela3, 80. Is.
he complaint prsys the court require Burke
bseeount for the present value Of the land, and
~ plaintiff may have judgment against Burke
- ths sum that the court may deem the present
splus d the land. Fifty-two interrogatories
nssstag TIE Transaction ars propounded. with
- puyee that the defense b required To
onguW tbem.
FATHER AGAINST SON.
Humphrey Jones yesterday fled in the su-
lssios court seventeen page complaint against
utnie0 B. Jones, HE business partner and son.
~ Nay Jones. his sons wife. praying for .
s.seS ~ VVuft Wtuatuk up L4O UoHiufSS VI tiiS
In u b. Jones 4 Son and appointing . ~
nlvse. The complaint Of the father alleges .
ollaes tals q the unflial conduct Of the son. Il
~ forth that they have been in the Wholesale
~ rsfail boot and shoe business since 1858.
II tashef contributed TO the capital stock
- ssd the son nothing whatever. The father
~ roctical boot and shoemaker, and hes de-
epeed h1s time TO the mechanical branch Of the
ee1ne0 while the con hes attended 70 the bay
~ esd selling and kept the accounts and
hneied the cash. The plaintiff afirms that
pesanea has been good and profits heavy. and
MI Nceutly supposed that the business y - on
: sou4 basiA On the 18th Of February lest an
leecunt OF tie stock. Assets and liabilities OF
= eeaiuee vas completed, and. 10 the aston
nAnent OF tie father. the assets wcre found 10
? 10 more than sufficient to meet the Iiabili-
- He alleges that he thereupon began .
nseo OF tnvesfisat. which revealed TIA
~ % had for years been pursuing system OF
saal against him. For years he has been
having large amounts from the assets without
aaking proper charges against himself. He
- seps the books In such way thai II 10 Inn
leaibls 10 tell what he has taken ont Over
neseo have been known to have been thus
ueua By the defendant 1T various times and
uveehd. without any charge having been
$50 therefor. Prior 10 January !. 1856. the
=. according 10 the complaint, took from the
Aaness ef.6oo to build . house on lot
Nocl Is, Bowen'e addition He further
sok $1,000 70 buy furniture. He
svVssed no In lot In block l. Eastern addi
All 100 more was taken 10 huiid double
cement house on this lot In the name OF bis
ne N.2so was invested In colltns' addition:
s@ Vas placed in q lot in wheelers addition,
% iast April $3.50 went 20 the purchase OF .
ma hr~ T.. 80 shs
- has drawn 81 600 per year during the part
sessAip Tor living expenses. and no account OF
nv q this has been made. The debts 81 the
nn amount TO $1,000 or more. and the stock
= nend win not reach this amount There Is
eeS due the concern. The complaint prsys
~ tne real estate OF the son purchased by the
ssa o. the business be made part of the
ssss ana Be used toward paving debts
,rosx IicHrBSnKEo's DEPARTMENT.
Judge Lch,enhe convened the superior
0an OF King county yesterday afternoon At
seaeek on horeback GU Mercer island The
- before the mounted conrt Was
sIn de fasqsilia va G. c. Caiktns
Ma wife. suit Ia recover pay
= contract TO clear atty lone acres OF land for
ssndant on Mercer islsnd. The case has been
" of the past three days. The testimony besr-
g On the question a. 10 whether the land had
sen cleared according 20 contract being ex-
sssesiagiy contradictory. there remained no
! ger way than an inspection OF the ground for
Ss court TO satisfy itself on that point TIE
saishn and defendant. the attorneys, Clerk De
s<fneau and the witnesses we're present. and
: court In open session moved about among
se saiai brush and skuak cabbage Of the 1is
pssd CLEARING.
JUDGE srsArroS's pEPAarsKNr.
ne case OF y. MeSats W. the Pacific Cable
s'as'raeuoa Company was given 10 the jury
ssseraAy. and verdict for the plaintiff Vas re
Ssnsa In ashors time. The Judgment q against
ss fasiae Cshis Construction Company and
- seattle Construction Company. The fun
noent sued for was asss co The attorneys of
We corporations have given notice Of . nsotion
= Anew TRIAL. A recess until this morning at
- vas taken in Judge STATIONS department