The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-26
NEEDS ARE MISSING.
s.r;ous Charges by B. F. Day
Against C. G. Heifner.
SECULAR REAL ESTATE DEAL.
,~ea, Papers Taken From Days Safe
Deposit Box-The Franklin Mine
suit-Sew Divorce suits.

p<ataassr r. Day flied a complaint In
- sur4ysor court yesterday against
800 r. HesEner and wife 20 secure
s-~ss 70 lots sold Rim ~ Heifner
- complaint alleges that oci05e~ p.
n n Whitworth was the owner OF
= south City feet OF lots and s. OF
go 4 In T. r. Days Eldorado addition
: shas city, subject TO an $50 mortgage
!. ssvor OF Day. that prior to june 2.
er ne Heifners were. and still are, the
80 In fee simple 90 lot and ali ex-
= the south City feet Of lots 8 and
xshat same property. II liz claimed that
s-,sax September. 1899, Heifner repre-
..-sad 10 Day that he had no real prop
- Il MS s4ame. and that II was neces-
- for aim TO have such real estate Of
- Ia his name Ia order that he
sxss be able 10 hold certain office I'M
i, me city government. and requested
rr nay to deed him some land that ne
.swss flace the deed OF record, and that
: ps.fgar, would then and thereafter
- Day deed back 10 the land
1. an additional inducemeE1t for having
a. daed TO land made In his, Helfners
go i II alleged that the latter repre-
.~~sas that as Days wife, Frances X.
- pan afraid that the influence OF his
s1s.ivas with her husband would allow
.ssr to get ali the property owned In
.s~rungty By the Days away from them,
"a ,ast abe would be left with no means
= caring for herself in Der advancing
sx.s. that this. added to her nervous na-
- might make IL best for plainsir. Il.
nav 20 place some OF his property
- he could control Il absolutely In
go AZ any emergency which his wife
go cause by reason Of this fear. and
800 might financially cripple or ruin II.
3 nav. and that the way TO do this was
= .saee the property in the hands OF
.ans person or persons whom Day could
,s,,ss taxing a deed back 80 himself and
saSag II privately until the emergency
sas passed. -
Eaitworth desired TO trade the south 20
fse, Of lots and 8 I'm block or h. r.
rsys Elaora4o, 10 r. r. Day and 10 be
s.ssvas AZ the remembrance thereon. and
an exrhanga was effected between Day
"a Whltworth by which Day became the
Gamer of the premises. Day, relying on
H.afner's representations. as he alleges,
ss,.sed whitworth 20 make a deed direct
&c q. Helfner OF the property October
n $50. instead of 20 himself. and the
ssca In OF record. Ia the same month
Hsifner and his wife executed 4 deed or
al their right and title IN the property
back TO n. r. Day
pnt relying on Heifner's further repre-
sentasloas as well as on his honesty and
good falsaI he being Days nephew by
marriage With the defendant, Lydia Heif-
ner. Day, for himself and as attorney IN
<ae, for his wife on June -. 1888, decided
10 Hesfner with special warranty lot
and Ill except the south nfiy feet or
lots and 6 In block or II. +. Days Ei-
dorado. Shortly after that Heifner and
his wife decided the same property TO Day.
The deed Of Heifner and hts wife 10
Day. together with contract between
Day and Heifner 10 pay interest on GER
tain mortgage also part OF the principal
Of the debt secured thereby. and sundfy
deeds mortgages, notes and other yalua-
BE papers we're, IL Is claimed. placed by
nay IN a private box OF the Safe Deposit
Faait on Front street, ana have never
BEEN taken therefrom by Day. and no 9th
pefsoa except himself and Hettner nave
al access 10 that box with the knowi-
tge and consent OF Day.
Dal alleges that during September or
0etoher OF 1891 c. q. Heifner, under pre-
tease OF rendering him assistance BY saw
tax aim in his old age the trouble and
aAor Of going 10 and from the safety de-
post vault 10 examine or get papers or
eccmenta 80 gained Ais confidence that
be gave Heifner the key OF the box with
4 permit 10 have access 10 TX, privilege
xhleh Heifner exercised up 10 last Janu-
airy.
During last January Day missed from
this safety deposit box the deeds from
Heifner and his wife 10 himself, as wei
as the contract between Heifner and
Day. Dav alleges that he never gave
HelaneF authority to remove these doeu~
ments and ne says he has reason 10 De-
iiepe that ueifner has parioined them
nom the vault. Day sets forth that no
consideration was ever given him by
Heifnar or any one for him. for the prop
srty IN question. that said lots and par
ssls or land have been rented during the
sxt three years by Day TO Samuel Fau-
sett. who has openly ana VIGOROUSLY held
aA premises as tenant OF, aud paid rent
iAerefor 20 Day until April !. 1855. and
sshsequent 20 the puriolning or the 1ocu-
rsn,s from the vault. that during the
last three years Day has also placed
about $500 worth OF improvements
o. the premises. and that Heifner IL now
aaemniing 10 exercise ownership or the
rsaperty and to collect rent from fau-
esst Day further says that all the repre-
sensassons made by Heifner 20 Day and
AL his acts were made With Intent To de-
franz Dav az his property. Day SAYS ne
has demanded OF Heifner the return o, me
ae~ss ard documents alleged 10 have been
pErioinpsi from the vaults, or that he e1 T.
Aease similar deeds. but Iielfner refuses
se % So
Day demands SO attorneys fee. that
sAs court shall adiudSe him the owner OF
me property covered nv the parleaned
sseis. that Helfner and his wife be order
ed ferthwHh 30 deed II 70 Day and his
s3s. AMI that in default the sheriff be
Authorized - execute sacn deeds 10 lay,