The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-04
THE DEED A FORGERY.
A Document Impounded With
the County Clerk.
AN INTERESTING LAND CASE.
Allegations of Fraud aud Collision to
Cloud Tftle-Complicated
Tax Sale Certificate.

| now on file and of record, Is forged docu-
| ment. created for the purpose of defraud-
/ ing him out of property to which he ac-
| quired good and sufficient title. Fearing
/ that the deed in question might be tam
/ pered with and not be forthcoming at the
| time of the trial of his case, he petitioned
| Judge Langley, at the same time that he
| filed his complaint, for an order impound-
| ing the deed in question in order to insure
| its safety. This order Judge Langley
signed. making County Clerk Gordon the
| custodian of the document until called for
| by the judge.
| The title of the suit is George r. Fisher,
| trustee, against Joseph E. Street, Mary
| Doe Street (whose true name is unknown)
| his wife. Kate Leekie Street, Henry Z.
| Street, Marmora De Voc, Victor Hugo
| Smith and Margaret III. Smith his wife.
| w. s. Schroeder and - Schreicker his
wife. In his complaint Fisher alleges
that, January 6. 1870, James W. Law
| plated the north one-half of the south
| west quarter of section p. township %
north. range east of Willamette merid-
ian. known as Laws addition to Sc
attic; that. August 2, 1871, Law sold to
| Noah FlIckinger fifteen lots in block 10
| of that addition, which Flickinger the
next day transferred to Joseph E. Street;
that the property, with the exception of
lots 4. 5, s. Z. was duly assessed to Street
| for 1892 but the taxes becoming delin-
| quent, the sheriff sold the lots May 7, 1888.
at public sale TO Almira Kidd for $S47,
! giving her a certificate of purchase. subject
| to redemption within three years. This
certificate, by divers transfers, became the
property of w. l. Wadleigh.
At the expiration of three years Wad-
| leigh presented satisfactory evidence that
the certificate of purchase had been de-
| stroyed in the great Seattle fire June 6,
/ 1889; that he had become the lawful owner
| of the property. had paid taxes. ETC., and
| by these showings the sheriff delivered to
! Wadleigh his deed. as sheriff, conveying
| the lots TO Wadleigh. This deed was re-
| corded January 5. 1894 subsequently
| Wadleigh and his wife conveyed by deed
| to the plaintiff Fisher the said lots,
namely, 1, 2, 3, 9. 10, II, II, Is, Ia, Is and
! 16. OF block 10, Laws addition, which lots
are vacant and unoccupied land. That at
public tax sale made by the sheriff June
6, 1882, /. Hanford purchased these same
!, lots. from l to Is, both inclusive, for de-
! linquent taxes for the year 1881, and the
sheriff gave MIN certificate of purchase
reciting that the lands had been assessed
| and taxed in the name of ]. Barnhardt
That by sundry assignments this certifi-
| cate of purchase became the property of
| Anna f. Smith who, June s, 1885. received
| from J. II. McGraw, then sheriff, a tax
| deed covering the property. which deed
was recorded June II. 1885, That July IL,
| 1885. Anna K. Smith and her husband
decided the property to lilo Adams, who
on February 4, 1887. recorded the deed and
made a transfer of it to Marmora De Voc
and Victor Hugo Smith. two of the de-
PENDANTS. THAT the defendants Schreieker
claim some interest in or title 10 or lien on
the premises by virtue of or through the
defendant Victor Hugo Smith. the nature
| of which the plaintiff does not know"
The complaint further alleges that the
deed of Sheriff McGraw to Anna +. Smith
is void and irregular in that the premises
were assessed and taxed in the name of
]. Barnhardt for the year 1881, when
! Barnhardt was not the owner and
the property was not assessed
as required by law; also that at the time
the deed was obtained from the sheriff
| Anna f. Smith did not submit any proof
that she had paid the taxes, in fact that
she had not paid the taxes at that time,
nor at any time, and had not at that time
redeemed the premises from prior sales
made to the county, had not paid subse-
! quently accrued taxes, and so leaving the
taxes on the property delinquent. and by
that act leaving the deed given her and
the subsequent ones by her to lilo Adams
and Marmora De Voc and Victor Hugo
Smith clouds on the title of the plaintiffs
property.
THAT on June %. 1894. sundry divers
persons acting in COLLISION 10 cloud the
title, caused 10 be made deed from Jo.
seph Z. Street 10 Henry T.. Street, pur-
porting 10 convey the premises of the
plaintiff, and plaintiff verify believes and
expects to prove, and therefore so states
the fact 10 be, that said deed is forgery
and not executed by Joseph +. Street, who
became the owner of the property in 1871,
and that the alleged deed was In June,
1894, filed for record with the county audi
tor, and is now recorded with the deed in
the custody of Auditor Twichell.
THAT the alleged deed purports to be wit
messed by F. Mouslin. taken before John
z. Poole, a notary public for California
alleged TO have been acknowledged before
him June -, 1894 and that said purported
and alleged deed bears on the face of il
! evidence of forgery and fraudulent process
in the execution of said deed. and that it
| is indispensable for the trial OF the plain
tins cause that the deed be preserved in
the condition it now is for personal exam
ination at the trial OF the cause and that
the same be impounded in the custody Of
the court SO that the same may be forth
coming at the trial.
The complaint further alleges that the
! plaintlff is informed that Joseph r Street
| the grantee in the deed from Noah Flick
| niger dated August g. ISL. is dead and
| that the plaintiff expects TO prove that
| Street did not appear before John F.
/ Poole, notary pnblle. and thai the deed Is
false and fraudulent and forgery"
The plaintiff prays TO have his title TO
I the property ratified and quiesed By set
/ ting sside al other alleged transfers that
I act as clouds on his title, thar the alleged
/ frsuduient deed may be put IN the hands
Of the court and impounded for safe keep
ing.
Judge Langleys order sets forth that
there being probable cause that the deed
IN question Is = forged and fraudulent
paper. "and that the same bears upon its
face the best evidence of It's false and
forged character. and that there Is lust
cause TO apprsheBd that the same will not
be forthcoming al the trial Of this ease, -
the court ordered the deed delivered 10 the
clerk of the court by the county auditor
90 be safely kept until called for by the
] court.