The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-29
THE CONGRESSMAN WILL HAVE TO
PAY THAT WELL 6 FRY
NOTE.
DIDN'T MAKE ) ANY FIGHT,
ALTHOUGH HE SET IT'D FoRmID-
ABLE ANSWER TO THE
COMPLAINT.
SUIT IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT.
torneys Said They Had Reached
an Agreement.

The case Of Well & Fry against Will
nam r. B1ckel and Frederick c. Stew
ems was set for trial in the civil branch
OF the municipal court yesterday after
noon at o'clock. At that hour Attor
ney A. B. Ovitt was the only occupant
OF the court room. Neither Judge nor
clerk were present and Mr.. Ovitt said
1t did not look as though there would
De any appearance of either the de-
PENDANTS or their attorneys. A few
minutes later Attorney J. NJ Haw-
thorne, attorney for F. c. Stevens.
rushed in and after cordially greeting
MI. ovitt said he was sorry but he
feared there would have to be a con-
t1nuance as Congressman Stevens had
not returned from Washington. Mr..
OV1tt thought there must be some mis-
take about the return of the congress
man, as he had met him three times
within the last few hours
Attorney Hawthorne however, said
he had not been able to find him and
suggested postponement of the case
until o'clock, and an adjournment to
the office of Mr. Stevens This was
agreed to and at o'clock both attor-
neys appeared before Judge Orr. The
case was settled, the attorneys said, by
judgment being entered against w. r.
Blckel by default and against Frederick
Z. Stevens by stipulation. Mr.. Ovitt
SAID this would allow Mr. Stevens to
recover from Bickel. if he had any
property at any time in the future. al
though it looked just now as though
Mr.. Stevens would have to settle for
the $211 due the plaintiffs less about
500. 1t was to cover this last mention
ed sum that the stipulation had been
made, as it was claimed that this
amount was due plaintiffs by William
B1ckel and not William F. Bickel, and
would be paid by the former
The suit was started in October 1897.
by the filing of the summons and com
plant. These papers set up that w
+. B1ckel owed the proprietcrs of the
Ryan hotel 5000 for board That he. to-
gether with f. c. Stevens, executed a
JOINT promlssory- note for the amount
due four months after date The note
was not paid at maturity and plain
tl1fs were obliged to pay SECS protest
ices. judgment was asked for $211. O5
against each of the defendants.
William F. Bickel made no answer
to the complaint, but F. c. Stevens
through his attorney, in his answer
denied that he had made or executed
the note. He admitted that he had
a1iXed his signature upon the note, but
that 1t was after the note had been en-
ecuted by Bicl1el and delivered to the
PLAINTIFFS; that he had received no con-
sideration therefor and that no consid-
Grafton accrued to plaintiffs therefor
from him and that his signature was
only placed on the note at the instance
and request of the plaintiffs Further
that after the execution and delivery
of the note the same was fully paid and
settled by Bickel and that nothing was
due or payable on the note This last
part OF the answer was alleged upon
the information and belief of Mr.. Stew
ems
The reply Of WelZ & Fry to the an
sWer of Stevens was to the effect that
Bickel was indebted at the time the
note was made for board and lodging
at the Ryan hotel; that Bickel, being
unable to Hquidate, offered to execute
his promissory note; that the note was
refused unless Bickel should procure
the signature of some other person on
the note. BickeI offered to get Stevens
to sign, which offer was accepted, and
Stevens. in order to induce plaintiffs
to accept the note, signed and it was
then accepted and Bickel's bill for
board and lodging was then cancelled
and released. Stevens executed the
note for the express purpose of giving
credit thereto and that the plaintiffs
claimed they would not have accepted
the note unless Stevens had signed it,