The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-04-21

An interesting ca1. IN which the
names OF . number u people prominent IN
the history Of Seattle were mentioned. Was
on trial before Judge E D. Benson in the
superior court yesterday morning. Before
the nodh hour had arrived the case reached
. Sudden and rather odd termination. The
plaintiff In The action is Mrs Nellie Phin-
nsy. the widow a. the late Gay C. Phin-
ney. who built the Butler hote, and whose
name = linked with the early growth and
development az the city Of Seattle Tho
defendant Is Henry H. Shufsidt. the mil
iionaire owner Of the Butter block Be
tween the parties Plaintiff and defendant
- an isxue as to the payment Of a note
for 3leeo0. made In favor Of Mr& Phlnney
and signed by George II. Heilhron. man
ager Of the Guarantee Loan and Trust
Company. and Edwin Huxhes.- the son-in-
law Of Mr.. Shufeid. and his local represen-
tative.
A story Of the case would involve many
matters nnd names thai are historical.
ton az witnesses and In the reading OF
hihits In support Of her claim. When the
witnesses for the plaintiff had been exam
ined the court Indicated his willingness to
hear arEunenss on Z notiAn to dizSlixS
The attorney for the fair plaintiff asked
that the case be dismissed without preju-
dice. This motion WAS granted. and 1t
leaves the matter 30 that Mrs. Phianey can
begin another action against the Chicago
millionaire on the same footing as she held
when the suit under discussion was first
flied.
The basis OF Mrs Ph.nney's claim for
$1,000 against Mr.. Shufeidt Is contained in
the note alleged to have been made in
her favor by the late George II. Hebron
and Edwin Hughes. This note was intro
duced in evidence. together with a deed
from Mr.. Helibron 10 Mr.. Shufeidt for the
valuable Butler building. In brief. this
was Mrs. Phinney'a claim: That Mr.. He'll
bron bought The Butler property from Mr..
Phinney and gave In part payment thereof
the note in question: that when Mr.. Sh1-
feldt purchased the property I'm ISL. il was
with the understandings that he would see
that tho $4,000 note was paid In full to
Mrs. Phinnsy.
The plaintiff herself was placed on the
stand. She testified TO material facts in
the case. as Outlined in the foregoing Her
attorney then sought 10 have her testify
concerning certain statements alleged to
nave RScI} usAdS " x1Gltblpu GHffSriLltsS
this note and the financial responsibility
of Mr.. Shufeldt for its payment. Counsel
for Mr.. Shufeldt was quickly In evidence
with a motion to exclude this testimony.
which appeared 10 be very important 10
the plaintiffs case. The court held with
the defense. and the testimony was ex-
Guided.
Then came an interesting phase OF the
case. Mr.. Hughes and Mr.. Shufeldt were
placed on the stand. one after the other.
by Mrs. Phinney's counsel. TO give teasti-
mony in her behalf. Naturally Mr.. Shu-
feidts Interest wcuid be agains; Mrs
Phinney. and the same Is true concerning
Mr.. Hughes. Under the law the plaintiff
under xucn circumstances II bound by the
testimony OF the witnesses called. although
1t NAV De directly agains. his interest.
Hughes testified that Mr.. ahufeiat knew
nothing OF the note, and in purchasing the
Butler property he had done SO without
assuming responsibility for the payment of
a dollar on the $Ie.o0o note. Mr. Snufeldrs
testimony on this line was positive. He
declared that he had never bound himself
TO see that the note was paid
This was the condition OF the matter
when the court indicated a willingness 10
hear motion BY the defense 10 dismiss
the action as without basis. Mr.. Piles,
for Mrs. phInney. preserved his clients
right to institute another suit by moving
that the case be dismissed without preJu-
dice. This the court granted. and an entry
10 this effect was made on the journal.