The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-04
BITTEN BY A SHARK.
One of Land Locator McLean's
Victims Mulcted.
NE PAYS FOR BEING swINDLEp.
Attorneys Fec Clause In Notes to Be
Tested-Indictments by q. 8.
Grand Jury-Court Notes.

The case OF Nathan Degginssr vs.. Charles J.
Jackson, for foreclosure OF mortgage, heard yes
terdsy before Judge Lichtenberg. brought ont
another OF the questionable business trans
actions Of y. Fl. Mclean, the land Location The
plaintiff in the suit, Nathan Dsgginger. is bar
lander 10 the Mug saloon. He purchased note
and mortgage given by Charles J. Jackson to
Mclean, and now he seeks its foreclosure
On Narcn 81, 1891, Jackson saw McLean's
bul!gtn board at the entrance to his Office He
vn attracted By the plausible offer to persons
vho would take up timber claims. He
had ; talk with Mclean, and the two
struck q bargain at once. Jackson
vn to take up claim near Hamilton. In Skagit
county, which Mclean was to point out to him
After living on 1t for three months he was to
come back and dispose OF his claim to Mclean
i6r $50 cash. MeLean's fee for putting him on
the claim was 500 As Jackson had no money
he gave Mclean his note for 500 and secured il
mortgage on two lots which he owned in
Seattle. The nots was due In ninety days, and
II contained a clause providing for SIS attorneys
fees In case legal proceedings should be insti-
tutsd. Mclean than sold the note and mort
gage to his attorneys, Farwell d Simon. This
lrm credited him with $45 on account giving
him @35 in cash. On March q, 1891, Farwel &
Simon sold the instruments to Nathan Deggingsr
for 4ss
Jackson alleges that he has never been located
~ Mclean, MS demands upon the land locator
having always been put OF evasivsiy.
Judge Lichtenbsrg decided that the plafntifY
was entitled to judgment for the amount of the
note and for foreclosure of the mo age In
announcing his decision the Judge took oceas-
ion TO express his regret that an innocent man
had been robbed OF his property In such an out
ssgeous way - Mclean had robbed Jackson
~ have been very CAREFUL" said the Judge, Gin
deciding on this case. That there were more
IT, II.
me at all, for dozen witnesses might be wrong
and one be right II Is plain that Jackson re-
csiyed nothing from McLsau, who 10 guilty of
the worst kind of . swindle; but the question
for US 10 consider IL whether Farvsli & Simon
were aware OF the fraud. X they were aware OF
the fraud and got Dsggingsr to buy the note to
clear themselves, that fact would disbar them
Immediately and there would practically be no
appeal for than. On that account have been
very careful, and am frank to say that my first
Impressions are different from my conclusions
Mclean and Jackson drew up the mortgage in
Farwslfs ONCE, but IL 10 clear to me that Far
well did not know the nature of the trans
action"
There 10 one chance more for Jackson, and
that chance involves an important question
In law. II 10 the question as to whether or not
the clause allowing s25 attorneys fees in case
suit 10 brought for the collection of the note
does not make 1T non-negetiable. Different
states have passed variously on this question,
but IL has never come up here before. Judge
Lchtenberg said he would entertain Q motion
Tor new trial on this question.