Sturgis advertiser. (Sturgis, Dakota [S.D.]) 1887-1???, 1890-09-11
70 TEE: : EzE: POINT.
Judge Polk Replies to the Tilford Times in
Foreible Language.

L 9V1eApAS &sesAAG Wss6Ss /.
The bitter acrimony natural to the
rogue and dead beat who has long elud-
ed his hosts OF creditors but who finally
got into the sheriff tolls and was forced
to settle one OF his many just debts,
pours forth his foul breath in the last
issue OF that ibelous sheet, the Meade
County Times, in an attempt to poison
the minds OF it's readers against the at
torney who brought him to terms. By
most unaccountable nis-statement of
facts, such as only one long accustomed
to inventing lies and ibels is capable of,
Freeman Knowles would lead his readers
to believe that he had been outrageously
wronged and that I had brought his ter
rible misfortune upon him and had been
guilty OF forgery simply to inconven-
ience him. Believing that the utter base
ness of this man was now thoroughly un-
derstood throughout the country and
that his scurrilous attacks had become
SO fragrant that no harm could come Of
them had concluded to pay no attention
| to his slanderous TRADE; but am inform
ed by several friends who were believers
in him until the publication Of the arti-
Gle in question that there are still few
people in the country who are OF the
opinion that this arch rascal is the refor-
mer he pretends to be. Though it seems
| impossible TO ME that such can be the
case, have concluded to take up por-
tion of your space to give the true facts
to the public, although I cannot help
but feel that in replying at all to Free
man Knowles I demean myself as does
any man who exchanges words with one
whom he knows to be absolutely devoid
of principle, vicious ibeller, an eyre
gious liar, an arrant hypocrite and a
meaner thief than brigand.
Now then, let it be understood at the
outset that as an attorney, secured
in the proper way a Judgment against
Knowles on promissory note signed by
Freeman Knowles, and that execution is
sued against the property of said Free
man Knowles, and that Freeman settled,
notwithstanding his statement that he
knew no more about q judgment against
him than ssthe man in the moon"
The facts of the case simply stated are
these: In May last began two actions,
one against Freeman Knowles and Alice
f. Knowles on their promissory note for
$12O with interest from March 7, 1887,
the other against Alice F. Knowles, the
wife of Freeman Knowles, for $3.50 with
interest from November %, 1886, on
three promissory notes. The plaintiff
in both cases was Charles M. Barnes.
The summons were properly served
in both instances and Judgment taken by
default. In the first case the judgment
was properly entered against Freeman
Knowles and Alice F. Knowles for $159.
In the second case the judgment was
properly entered against Alice f.
Knowles but by some mistake, either OF
my clerks or my own, the name of Free
man Knowles was also included. Now
then, this lover of truth says this judg-
ment twas sure enough, in Polk's own
handwriting" No man could debase
himself more than this man does IN
making this statement, because, on dis
pute over this same question, he went
with me to the county clerks office and
T showed him that the judgment, unlike
the other papers in the case, was not IL
my handwriting but in that of my clerks
He further says: 'There was also
Polk's affidavit wherein he swore that we
were party to the suit and had been duly
served with summons" This is an un
mitigated falsehood of the rankest sort
and in order that his friends may SCI
what wholesale manufacturer of het
, this performer" (sic) is, I quote the pre-
else language of the affidavit which is as
follows:
. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,l
COUNTY OF MEADE.
) Chas. G. Polk being duly sworn says that he i
attorney for the plaintiff in the above entitled
acton taas ne M 9 ang fSat ~
answer or demurrer has been received therein o.
: appearance in any manner made by the DEFEND
| ANT and that more than thirty days have elapses
9 since the service of the summons on the DEFEND
| ANT in this action, etc.
The small caps are mine, and it will b.
f seen that they are in the singular ant
refer to but one defendant, which, by
. reference to the summons and complaint
) NAV be seen to be Alice f. Knowles.
IS Nowhere does the affidavit say Free
Q man Knowles is party to that action
), or that he has been served with sum
mons therein.
. In this case, however, execution wa
issued against both Alice Knowles an
Freeman Knowles, and the property c
? both parties was levied upon. Bu
II when 1t was found that Freema
t. Knowles name was improperly in thi
10 Judgment and execution the levy was RI
! leased as to his property on that ext
= cution, but another levy was immediatel
l. made upon the same property by virtu
RS of an execution issued upon the propt
Judgment against him the sainted Fre'
man Knowles who, with such virtuou
20 indignation, would lead the public to b.
., lieye that all his trouble was brougl
k. about by forged judgment"
v, This Judgment was obtained again
him in the proper way and he had fu
notice of proceedings leading to it b
r. the service of summons upon him /
it. his fellow townsman, Theodore Roche.
;s When his property was in the custod
OF the sheriff he came to me first in
spirit Of bravado and attempted to sea
n or bulldoze me into giving him relief, al
tie when he found this would not work
%. became cringing suppliant for merc
n saying that he was all prepared to mo
to to Deadwocd; that his business AT
IL family were suffering great inconyenien
We and offered me mortgage on his hom
,st stead to secure the debt if would I
tie lease the levy and not have the sher
II -