The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-08-25
4 BROWNS PLANT.
8 Old Man Says His Son-in-
Law Defrauded Him.
.u.xrs HIS ISLAND couNTyFARM
s-h<rt Abrams IL the Desendant-Thrse
snail Vessels Libeisd-sais Over
. Set Of Teeth.

pob>rt Brown. an old man OF nearly -
,~syy. began suits IN the superior court
sruterday against his son-inIaw, kooert
th<suus. 70 recover 1915 which he alleges
- latter sxsorted from him By threats
"a false representations. together with
4 70 damages by the alleged nisrspre-
natations.
Previous 10 May. 1888. the plaintiff al
s.sex he ~as the owner Of farm IN
Hand county. known - the Jacob smith
l.rasion claim. containing $50 acres and
.,lned a, about 900. This property
80 encumbered by q first mortgage OF
a 0C0 and second mortgage OF ESQ. to-
ether 9Th accrued interest In January,
I'm. be alleges, the farm subject 10 the
.ortraees was sold under execution 20 T.
csbe. the person in whose favor judg-
susnt was rendered. and J. 7. Ronald, for
s1se.z5. shortly after the sale, tae
raasntin goes on TO ailege. Abrams. MS
son-in.law. bought the rights and interest
q cabe and Ronald in the property Tor
II 100 and received an assignment OF tnefns
Immediately raising the second mortgage
II $50. At the same time, 80 u 10 al
jexed. Abrams represented to his father
sn-lsw that be was acting solely for the
1stter's benefit and gratuitously, and
would upon the repaymens with interest
d the money expended release all claim
rpon the farm In his parents favor.
Thess representatives, the plasntih
states. he relied upon, and allowed the de-
fendsnt iuli control of all of his business.
skinx no steps to redeem from the sher-
IFS sale until the time for redemption had
nearly expired. He then. II Is alleged,
made his son-in-law tender OF $3.50 and
interest. that being the sum actually ex-
pended by the latter on his behalf. This
tender. IL 10 alleged, was not accepted by
Abrams. who demanded s.. 40l. ~, that be-
ing the full amount OF the judgment rem
dered in favor Of Cabe, and 20 satisfy
which the farm was sold, together with
the $50 expended in raising the second
mortgage and claim of $1s5 for services
and alleged disbursements of nature not
specified. At this demand the old man
claims 70 have been much surprised. as he
had understood his son in-Iaw to be work
Ing not in his own interest, but
for his father-in-iaw's and without ex-
pectation Of return. and. therefore, ex-
p<esed to obtain the title of Abrams to the
farm tor It's actual cost TO the latter, 81. 100.
and without the payment of any sums
whatever for services.
He therefore demonstrated and pro-
tested that the demand was robbery,
whereupon. 10 Is alleged, the old man was
violently assaulted by his business man.
sger. who dragged him across the door and
threw him out of doors on rainy night
In April. After this. the plaintiff goes on
70 allege, he began to fear that. being in
the defendants power. he would lose all
Of his property In his old age, and know
Ing no other way in which to save him.
self, on the last day allowed for redemp-
ton he paid under protest to the sheriff Of
Island county for the defendants use the
amount of the latter's demand with inter-
81. amounting in all to $500. He now
wishes to recover 1915, which he Claims
~ extorted from him, although not law
fully due.
The second complaint makes the same
aIlegations as the first. but contains in ad-
dillon the allegation that prior 10 the pay
ment OF the alleged extortionats claim by
ihe plaintiff. TIM defendant. Abrams, pre-
vented one Charles Sutton from buying q
HtNt % tbc iaEtA3 LOT an aAHouuk suIaGteub
% enable the plaintiff TO pay the demand
Of bis son-in-law and the first mortgage
upon the farm. by representing TO Sutton
that he had claim of $1,000 against IL
and that the land was then in litigation.
Sutton. II IS alleged, did not want to buy
. lawsuit. aud refused 90 make the pur-
chase.
Another allegation contained in the sec
ond complaint is that shortly after Sutton
refused to bay the land the plaintiff en-
tered into negotiations with l.. NJ. Pres
pail. Seattle loan agent, for loan of
$500 on the security of the farm. Pres
nall. ID Is alleged. was willing 10 make the
loan until the defendant went TO him and
Informed him that the old man was in
competent 10 manage his affairs and that
the loan would be void. And then Pres
nall backed out. IL Is claimed now that
these representations were false and
made with intent 20 render IL impossible
faf the plaintiff To redeem his property
All that the defendant might become un-
lAsfullv possessed Of the same and the
plainsiH ruined in his old age" A dam
AGES by these misrepresentation the sum
dN 20 is prayed for.
CLAIMS TuF TEErH nIDs.r FIT