The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-12-01
HAS A HISTORY.
Promissory Note as the Price of n
Recommend.

Promissory Note as the Price of n
Recommend.
! Some time ago the Salt Lake Build
ing and Manufacturing company filed
suit against one Johannes Halvorson
to recover $221.41 on a promissory note
duly signed by the said Halvorson and
executed in favor of said company.
Yesterday a document was filed in
the Third district court clerks office
which was the cross complaint and an
swer to the original complaint. The
answer was All equally harmless and
unimportant looking affair but it's con-
tents had to do with matters of ex
| tended scope
AS usual there is woman in the
case, but her name is not mentioned,
| but by inference it is presumed that
in the course of time she became Mrs.
Johannes Halvorson and indirectly at
! least, according to Halvorson'S aft
dav1t she was the cause of suit being
started. The cross complaint brings in
matters pertaining to church organlza-
! ton and government, marriage rights
and customs and other matters usually
lacking in a document of this kind. In
brief, it charges that the defendant IN
! the case was coerced into signing the
note by the threat that unless he COM
the note he would be denied recon-
mendation, which would allow him to
have his marriage ceremony performed
according to the usual rites of his
church.
In answer to the complaint the de-
PENDANT admits that he signed the note
executed in favor of the Salt Lake
Building and Manufacturing associa-
ton, but denies that it was for valu-
able consideration or for any conSld-
Grafton at all and charges that his
signature to the said note was obtained
by force, fraud and undue influences.
He admits that the note has not been
paid nor any part thereof, but denies
that the note or any part thereof or
any of the interest of the note is due
or payable at all.
In the cross complaint the allegations
of force, fraud and undue influence are
reiterated and more explicitly deScrlp-
ed. The affidavit states in the first
and second sections that at the time
the note was executed Henry A
WooIey was the president of the said
Salt Lake Building Association and
Manufacturing company, which corpo-
ration is the plaintiff in the acton ana
that the said Henry A. Wooley was
the president of the Thirteenth quorum
of elders.
One of the rules of the church, at all
times herein mentioned, to Whlch RUE
defendant was subject by reason OF MS
membership in said church, was Ina
all members of said church before said
member was permitted to have his
marriage ceremony performed an &C
cordance with the rites and ceremonies
of said church, were compelled TO ODD
tain a recommendation from the ELDERS
quorum embracing the eccleslastIcal
division in which said member might
be living and that he desired Sucn
recommendation
The defendant is informed ana De-
lieves and so charges the fact to be
that on the 18th day of September,
1891, and for long time prior thereto
one A. W. Lundstrom was indebted to
the Salt Lake Building and Manufac-
turing company, the plaintiff herein, IN
a large sum of money to wit: S22l4l;
that on or about the 18th day of Sep
tember. 1891 a few days prior to the
date set for the marriage set for the de-
PENDANT, defendant went to SAID Henry
A. Wooley as president of the
thirteenth quorum of elders which en-
braced the ecclesiastical division in
which the defendant resides, and asked
the said Henry A. Wooley for a
recommend permitting him to be mar
ried Defendant then and there Of
fered to pay any charges when henry
a. Wooley might make for his services
in granting said recommend, but the
defendant was informed by the said
Henry A. Wooley that there were no
charges whatever for his services but
that the defendant would not be given
a recommend unless he would assume
the said Indebtedness of A. w. Lund-
Strom to plaintiff.
That the defendant was very deSlr-
Gus of obtaining the recommend and
said Henry A. Wooley having refused
to grant it until defendant would sign
said note, defendant was finally, by
means of force, fraud and undue in
fuence induced to sign the promissory
note as set forth in plaintiffs COM
plant. The defendant futher alleges
that he was induced to sign said note
wholly on account of the force, fraud
and undue influence set forth and that
there was no other consideration for
the promissory note.
Whereupon defendant prays judg-
ment that plaintiff take nothing by his
complaint, and that defendant be hence
dismissed with his costs.