The herald., 1897-01-13
Peculiar Methods Attributed to
Col. r. B. Treat
SUED FOR A SMALL AMOUNT
Mrs, Lizzie NJ Elliott Alleges Sharp Deal
ing by Her Lawyer
The Colonel Makes a Statement In His
Own Defense-He Is Satisfied to
Await Vindication in Court.

A civil suit was yesterday brought in
Justice Morrison'S court in which the
complaining witness. Mrs Lizzie NJ.
Elliott. makes some serious charges
against Col. r. +. Treat, who has for
| some time acted as her attorney A few
! days ago Mrs. Elliott called upon Dep
uty District Attorney James and asked
! for d complaint against Col. Treat, ac-
| cusing him of misapproprating funds
intrusted to his care.
| In July last she had employed Treat
10 look after some of her business. col
! lecting interest on loans, rents for real
estate. etc, agreeing to pay him s25 per
quarter for his services. She stated
that about two months ago Treat had
collected s35 for her account which he
failed to turn over to her. On Deem
Der 5th last. Mrs. Elliott stated, Treat
came to her and said that he needed,
somt morey and would in a few DAYS
have some funds in the California bank.
In the meantime he would like Mrs. Ell
lott TO exchange checks with him-he
to give her a check for $50 in his bank.
she to return her personal check upon the
First National bank. This was done. but
when. after the lapse of the stipulated
time, she presented Treats check for
payment there We're still no funds to
his credit.
This was the last straw and the irate
woman consulted the district attorney.
VINO advised her to see Col Treat be-
fore proceeding further. To this Mrs.
Elliott agreed and met Col. Treat in
ar. James o.lice to straighten out the
affair.
1t is claimed that Col. Treat
paid $40 of the $50 due on the
check transaction. but still owes tile
other SO. A civil action was instituted
for its recovery, and q few days later
Mrs. Elliott called again on Mr.. James
and related a new cause of grievance.
During the course of business she haG
occasion to give Col. Treat a check for
5000 to pay on a rea, estate transactior.
She had but just ascertained that only
$3.50 was paid, which was all that was re
quired to settle the claim. but alleged
that up to date her attorney had faile,-
to account for the remainfng sec.
In his own behalf Col. Treat last night
made the following statement to The
Herald: with reference to certain DIFF
fererces which have arisen between
Mrs. Lizzie NJ. Elliott md myself have
only 10 say that although the ar.oun-
l.
because of the unjust and unfair charges
involved therein, being satisfied to leave
the determination to the court as to VINO
IS right and who Is wrong. But IS to the
charge of appropriating money To my
own use out of $500 check entrusted 10
me. II is 50 maliciously false ard caIcu-
lated to irjure me that | wish 10 state
tEe facts Mrs. Elliott desired to MAKE
a payment to her son-in-law on Land
purchase and drew her check on the
First National bank for $500 payable TO
my order. After it was drawn II was
discovered that the amount to be paic
was $3.50. Whereupon l drew from the
bank $500 and Immediately. then and
there, deposited $50 to the credit OF Mrs
Elliott and paid the $3.50 10 the party Ell
titled to il, taking, however. the precaH-
tion to get from the teller a duplicate
deposit tag showing the deposit anG
gave il to Mrs. Elliott the following day
How in the face of these facts. SO easily
verified, she can make this charge
aga inst me is not easily explained. I
have only to add that l have served this
woman as an attorney honestly and
faithfully. and am entirely willing Ia
submit the charges she makes to the
court wherein the action is pending"