The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-02-23
MR.. BARTLETT SIDE OF 1T.
He Tells of Thai Deal with Thomas
l., on trd.

Hns DrHn l. Die Vt
He Tells of Thai Deaf with Thomas
L,onird.
There are two sides to all cases at law
and the STANDARD always gives the pub
lie an unbiased statement of the causes
mt issue. 1t is, however, usually supposed
that IN courts findings oil the facts APP
pear, but it seems that in the findings in
the case of Hannah G. Baker VS.. j. II.
Bartlett ct al, in which L. II. Sinclair in
tervened, there were alleged facts which
did not appear.
j. II. Bartlett was rebuked by the court
most severely and censured in strong
terms and be states that an injustice has
been done him by Judge Brantly's opinion
which he had never seen nor heard of eX-
cept that it was in favor of Mr.. Sinclair,
until the publication of it in the STAND
ARD yesterday. He says he is in business in
this city and has borne a good reputation
which he hopes to sustain and feels much
agrieved by the accusations of the court.
He says that there were facts in the case
which owing to the peculiar nature of the
action did not appear in court and could
not be introduced in evidence, but which
alter the circumstances materially and
put the matter in a somewhat different
light.
roborates his statement, says that the
real estate transaction, the sale to L. H.
Sinclair occurred in this wise.
II was in need of money" says Mr..
Bartlett, "to-push a mining suit in which
Twas engaged and 1t so happened at that
time that Mr.. Sinclair was in Anaconda.
He had money which he wished to invest
where it would be safe, and l offered 10
sell him my right and Interest in this
property in question lot 16 in block 81.
~ knew of the mortgage upon it amount
ing to 81 500, had borrowed the money
and given my note for the payment of it.
l have never denied the debt. The
mortgage was supposed cor
rectly drawn and correctly re-
corded at Deer Lodge. When. Mr..
Sinclair was satisfied with the property.
referred him to the records to see what
there was against it, and offered to sell
him my interest in the property for $500.
l supposed when he accepted the offer
that he had done and knew of the
mortgage and was satisfied with the bar
gain. The property is worth 5000 easily,
as the improvements on il cost $500 and
and the lot is worth s., 900.
"The first that knew of the mistake was
when Mr.. Sinclair wrote to me, asking
about the mortgage on the property,
which Hannah Baker was endeavorng to
foreclose. We correspondent back and
forth about the matter and decided TO set
tie it by rectifying the mortgage, placing
it on the right lot and paying the costs of
the suit.
"Mr. Sawyer was empowered to make
this proposition to the plaintiff, Hannah
Baker, and he did SO.
"Miss Baker was not satisfied, however,
will In oho ,t,,I
in addition to the above as an attorneys
fee for her brother, who drew the COM
plant. This was more than we could
stand, as it was an unjust charge, all the
attorney had done in the case was to
draw the complaint, which any lawyer
would do for $40. Every effort possible
was made to compromise the case, but on
that $40 fee we disagreed and tho
plaintiff said She would take her chances
in the court.
"To this we acceded and they had their
chance and were beaten; still not being
satisfied they wish to continue the case in
the newspapers"
Attorney G. NJ. Sawyer gives the circum-
stances of his looking up the record as
these:
"Mr. Sinclair wrote to me to look up the
title to lot 16 in block 81 of the city of An
or any other owner. OF course the title to
that lot was clear, owing to the mistake of
the man who made it out. Had Mr.. SIM
clair mentioned Mr.. Bartlett's name the
existence of the mortgage would have
been discovered, as Mr.. Bartlett supposed
it would be.
1.-The plaintiffs were given a chance to
secure themselves, no one tried to defraud
them of any money. In behalf of Mr..
Bartlett and Mr.. Sinclair l offered to
rectify the mistake in the mortgage, pay
them the costs and interest to date, which
was refused.
1.-THE money to pay the note could not be
raised at that time on any kind of secur-
ity. as that was during tho recent financial
stringency, but they were offered every
security for a renewal of the mortgage
corrected and all interest paid to date.
They appealed to the courts and the re-
suit was against them. Mr.. Bartlett was
shut out of the case because Mr.. Sinclair
interviewed, and this compromise offer
could not appear before Judge Brantly.
Had the judge known of these crcum-
stances am sure ne would not have said
what he did with reference to Mr.. Bart
lett, and think he will have something to
say to attorneys and others who use court
documents to mislead the public"