The herald., 1897-02-04
A HEADACHY CASE.
Real Estate That Was Wrangled About
Till You Couldn't Rest.

Such curiously involved read estate
case came up before Justice Young yes
| terday that before the hearing was half
through most of the hearers must have
suffered from splitting headaches, as
| a result of the mental effort to under
stand the details.
1t is curious, too, that within the week
two comparisons of what have generally
been considered impossible things have
been shown forth as veritable facts in
the courts. 1t has been proven in the
case of Gallardo that man can steal
| "a reCi-hot stove" and in the case at bar
the allegation was made that Leander
Griffin did steal a dwelling house. But
that is the story.
1t appeared that Leander Griffin pur
chased from Benjamin and Mary Atkin-
son thirty acres of land at Strawberry
Park in September of last year. c. G.
Harrison had a mortgage on the prem
ises for $1SS3.33 which was taken over
by Griffin. About the same time Griffin
gave to Martin & Kurtz, the real estate
men, a mortgage on his newly acquired
property for $500 to secure contingent
commission in the event of the sale of
the property which Griffin had so re-
Gently purchased.
The understanding was that the
Strawberry Park place was to be sold
to Mrs. Amy Sanford, providing that c.
G. Harrison, the holder Of the mortgage
on the Griffin place, would take the
equity Of Mrs. Sanford in a certain San
Julien street house and lot in payment
of his mortgage. Subsequent to the
Kurtz sold Mrs Sandford's lot to a man
named Tuttle, thereby making 1t impos-
sible for the firm to earn the commits
sion for which the $500 mortgage had
been given, thus leaving the mortgage
without any valid consideration.
The next step in the complication was
when c. G. Harrison instituted fore
closure proceedings against Griffin, At
kinson and others, and this would have
been comparatively plain legal sailing
had not Griffin just concluded the sale
of his interest In the ranch to Mrs. Ten
nant, lady living in New York, before
the foreclosure proceedings were insti-
tuted. Mrs. Tenant sold the dwelling
house on the ranch to Mrs. SandfOrd
who, by the way, owned the ranch ad-
joining that which Griffin had purchased
and sold again. Mrs. Sanford having
paid for the house, regarded it as her
property, and had it moved on to her
place. This was done after the fore
closure proceedings had been begun.
Harrison applied in court for a receiver,
and one Hackenlively was appointed.
He tried to recover the house taken
away by a citation in department six,
but Judge Allen ruled that SO soon as
the house was separated from the
ground upon which it rested, it's nature
as property was changed. Failing there,
the receiver filed a criminal complaint,
charging Griffin with having removed
the house for the purpose of defrauding
Martin & Kurtz and c. G. Harrison, the
mortgages. This latter case was tried
in the township court yesterday
The court held that inasmuch as Grif-
fin had never executed a mortgage to
Harrison, the mere assumption of the
mortgage Indebtedness did not bring
Griffin within the meaning of the act,
so far as the Harrison mortgage was
concerned. On the other hand, mas
much as no valid consideration had
existed for the Martin & Kurtz mortgage
there could have been no intent on the
part of Griffin to defraud them and
therefore no offense had been commit
ted.
1t can be imagined, with such a set
of facts to wrestle with, the court had
no very easy time. Assistant District
Attorney Williams prosecuted the case
and w. F. Haas, Esq.,, represented the
defendant, Griffin