St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-14

year, and that the defendant would
secure a renewal. The answer denies
that said agreement was entered into.
Tho complaint states that the fact
OF the sale, which is corroborated by
the answer, also the fact of the pur-
chase OF the Evening Star at later
date by the Tribune company. when
the capital stock was increased from
| 100000 to $500, 600, and recites the fact
| of the fire in the old building, and the
erection OF new one across the street
| Then the bonding of the property,
| In April, 1890, for S250,000, which the
complaint alleges was done at the Eur
gent request of the defendant, also
mat 1t was agreed between the parties
That $4,000 of bonds should be used
py the defendant in the payment of
promlssory notes, for which defendant
was lndorser; that the bonds Were de-
l1vered to the defendant upon his
promise that he would sell them to
TAKE UP and pay the notes, and that
When the notes were thus taken UP
the defendants interest in the CORPORA
uoh should pass into the hands of the
plalntiff. 1t further states that the
a
majority of the shares of the COM
pahy stock, 5000 shares, to enable
MIN to sell the bonds, but that the
oohos were not sold, and the notes
were paid at maturity by money on-
taileo by the plaintiff on his own
notes, Endorsed by the defendant. con-
sequently that the defendant did not
return the shares held by him. and has
the $3.50, 900 in bonds.
Ihe answer admits the bonding of
the company, but denies that it was
uoiie at the suggestion or upon the re-
quest of the defendant, and further
ueiiies tnat there was any understand
ing that share of the bonds should
oe used by the defendant in payment
OF promissory notes, of which defend.
ant was lndorser. 1t also denies the
ueiiNery OF the bonds to the defendant
with any such understanding.
The answer also admits the. deIivary
81 the STOCK and the bonds to the de.
PENDANT, but denies that it was done
Oh any promise to sell the bonds in
Incubation of the personal debts of tho
plaintiff.
me complainant then recites that
.He tribune company became embar-
idssed by reason of its $4,000 indebted
ness, ana that the plaintiff applied to
the defendant for financial assistance
Deie!iuant refused the assistance, but
agreed, II the plaintiff would retire
rom the company, to sell the whole of
the STOCK and property for a sum suf-
hcieht TO pay all outstanding obliga-
tions, and all the money invested bv
the plaintiff in the concern.
This is the meat of the whole suit
anu on the decision of this point rests
the case. The answer states In refer
ence TO the aforesaid floating indebt-
edness. that 1T was not brought about
ny the losses by fire or by the purchase
of the Evening Star, but that ..the
same accrued and were occasioned
largely by means of the mismanage-
heht' misconduct, inattention to bust
ness ana extravaganza of the plaintiff
AS 10 re specific charge that the de-
PENDANT promised to manage the sale
10 Iuily remunerate the plaintiff for
MS investment, the answer denies IT
IN unqualified terms, and denies that
the plaintiff informed the defendant
or the true condition of the company.
or Of the full amount of it's indebted
this head is denied after a full recital
of the plaintiffs claim.
The actual transaction by which the
property was sold to w. ]. Murphy is
recited in the complaint.
( That this plaintiff then and there
accepted the proposition of said de-
PENDANT in the last preceding para
graph mentioned; that subsequently,
int
plaintiff one w. ]. Murphy, of Grand
Forks. N. D., but claiming then to be
from the East, as the proposed pur-
chaser of the capital stock and prop
erty of said Minnesota Tribune COM
/ pany; that this plaintiff, trusting in
and relying upon the said promise of
said defendant and In fulfiliment of
| his portion Of the said agreement, on
Il the 10th day of March, 1891, made an
agreement for the sale of the entire
capital stock Of the Minnesota Trib-
une company to the said w. J. Muir
ply, for the price and consideration
In said agreement named, viz, $3.50, OOO
The complaint goes on to state that
the sale was negotiated entirely by the
defendant, the plaintiff not meeting
Mr.. Murphy until the deal was COM
having any hand in the transaction,
other than to introduce W. J. Murphy
to the plaintiff as a prospective pur-
| chaser.
The complainant then states the
! fact of his 100000 investment In the
| Tribune, and charges that by the
| transaction between the said Murphy
and the defendant he was deprived of
| the whole of said sum of S10O, 600; that
! he has frequently demanded the pay
ment of said sum by the defendant,
| and that defendant has repeatedly re-
fused, and till this time neglected to
| pay the sum, or any part of it. There
| fore the plaintiff demands judgment
against the defendant for the sum of
| 100000, with interest thereon from
| March 10, 1891, at per cent per an
mum, together with his costs and dis
| bursements in the case
y The answer maintains that the
4 plaintiff has been fully paid for his
interest in the company by the pay
ment Of the debts of said company
and his individual debts, more than
| said sum Of $3.50, 900.
The st. Louis Wins.