Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1898-08-31
A RambuSCh Echo.

In it's county court proceedings The
Juneau Independent says:
The case of VIM. Bartel against
John P. Brown came on for trial be-
fore jury. This case is known as one
of the "Rambusch cases. and has for
it's basis one of Rambusch's fraudu-
lent transactions. The plaintiff, VIM.
Bartel, who is a well-known farmer of
the town of Lowell, executed to W.
T. Rambusch on August II, 1894, a
mortgage for $1,000. On August %
Mr.. Rambusch assigned the note and
mortgage to John P. Brown, the de-
PENDANT, and the latter did not put
the assignment on record or notifyBar-
tel of his ownership of the mortgage.
In August, 1896, before Rambusch
absconded, Mr.. Bartel went to the
Citizens Bank of Juneau where the
note was made payable, and paid
$500 principal which he was privi-
legged to pay at that time, together
with the interest Rambusch came
in while he was paying the money
and gave Bartel a receipt. Rambusch
did not inform him that Brown was
the owner by assignment. Bartel de-
manded that he endorse the payment
on the mortgage, but Rambusch got
out Of this by saying that it was near
noon and that he had the mortgage
in his safe and would make endorse
ment some other time. Rambusch
did not pay over the money to Brown
and Brown sought to collect it from
Bartel. When the balance of $500 be-
came due in October, 1897, Mr.. Bartel
rendered the same with interest and de-
manded a satisfaction piece in full.
This Brown refused to do and suit
was brought to recover the 800 pen
atty which the statutes impose for
failing to satisfy a mortgage when
paid. The jury was out but fifteen
minutes and was unanimous on every
question. The following is the special
verdict rendered.:
We, the jury empanelled and sworn
to try the issues in the above entitled
action, make answer to certain ques-
tions submitted to us by way of spe-
cial verdict as follows: @. l. Did
the plaintiff, VIM. Bartel, pay on the
DIST day of September, 1896, at the
Citizens Bank of Juneau, the sum of
five hundred dollars to be applied on
the note and mortgage in question to
w. t. Rambusch as president and
Theodore p. Hemmy as cashier, or
either of them as such officers? An
swer. Yes. @. 2. Did the plain
tiff tender to the defendant a salts
faction piece Of said mortgage in due
legal form with legal fee and request
the defendant to execute the same? A.
No. Q. 3. Did the defendant, John
P. Brown, execute said satisfaction
piece and deliver the same to said
plaintiff within the time required by
law? A. No. O. 4. Did the de-
PENDANT, John P. Brown, ever give
notice to the plaintiff that he held
said mortgage in question? A. No,
Z. 5. We're all conditions of the
mortgage in question as applied to
the plaintiff complied with proir to
the commencement of this action? "a.
Yes. @. 6. Was w. T. Rambusch
the agent of the defendant, John P.
Brown, to collect either principal or
interest on said note? A. Yes. Q.
Z. If you find that the plaintiff paid
any portion of the principal to Ram
busch or Hemmy did the plaintiff re-
quire them to produce the note at the
time of making such payment? A.
Yes. Q. 8. Do you find for the
plaintiff or defendant? A. For the
defendant.