The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-15

!
! time and allowed the account to run
along until the men and teams had
all come out of the woods and the
river was open to navigation. Then
| Sutton modestly requested the pay
ment Of his bill, amounting to $2O9.60.
! He was informed that there was no
such firm as Eustis, Neal & Co. in ex-
! istence, and consequently William
! Henry paid nothing.
Then Sutton sued Eustis, Neal
& Co., garnisheeing the Itasca
Lumber company, and after the COM
plant and answer had been several
times amended the case came to trial
in the district court in Aitlkin county,
and judgment was given for defend
ants, they having apparently proved
= their case, although Mr.. Eustis testified
! to the foregoing.
| A copy Of the answer Of the de-
! fandants follows:
! STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTIES OF
| AitEin and Itasca-Dis;rict Court, Fiji
teenth Judicial District.
c. c. Sutton against William H. Eustis,
William E. Neal and John G. Fraser. CO.
partners as Eustis, Neal & Co., defend
ants.
The defendants for answer to the amended
complaint herein deny that they were CO.
partners doing business under the firm name
and style of Eustis, Neal & Co. at Grand
Rapids, Mimi, during the times mentioned
in the amended complaint
Defendants deny that between the 27th
day of November 1887, and 1st day Of April,
1888, they under the firm name of Eustis
Neal G Co. became indebted to plaintiff
upon an account for food lodgings and enter
tanment furnished to them, their employees
and teams at their special instance and re-
quest in the sum of $2O96O or any other
sum.
Defendants further answering aver that in
the month Of May, 1887, the Neal & Carr
Lumber Co., a corporation duly organized
under the laws of this state, became the
successors by purchase and succeeded to the
business of the firm of Eustis, Neal & Co.,
and has ever since carried On the same, and
that all the transactions referred to in the
amended complaint, if such transactions eX-
listed, were with the said Neal & Carr Lum-
ber Co., and not with the said Eustis, Neal
& Co.
Wherefore. defendants demand that the
complaint be dismissed with the costs and
disbursements of this action.
William H. Eusts,
Defendants Attorney, Minneapolis, MINI.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, HENNEPIN
County-Ss.
W. II. Eustis, being duly sworn, deposes
and says that he is one of the defendants
above named that he has heard read the
foregoing answer, and knows the contents
thereof, and that the same is true Of his
own knowledge, except as to those matters
therein stated on information and belief, and
as to those matters he believes 1t to be true.
William H Eustis.
Sworn to before me this 4th day of Sep
tember, 1883.
&C. c. Williamson,
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
v.
Before the case came to trial, how
ever, Eustis met Sutton on the street
at Aitkin and, Mr.. Sutton says, offered
to pay him a similar account due from
Neal & Tweedie for $685. in which Eus-
tbs was also interested. on condition
that Sutton would withdraw his suit
against Eustis Neal & Co. Sutton
declined, and-got left.
Eustis had told him to collect his
account from the Neal & Carr Lumber
company, and Sutton replying that,
if he Eustis) would leave the Neal
Carr Lumber company alone, he (Sut-
tom would know where to secure him
self, Eustis blandly informed Sutton,
with that smile which has become so
we'll known, that the Neal & Carr Lum-
ber company had nothing.
All the papers in the case are in the
care Of the clerk Of the district court
of Aitkin county, Eustis appearing as
the attorney Of Eustis, Neal & Co.
VI
During the summer of 1887, before
the above mentioned suit was tried
Eustis, Neal & Co. ran steamboat
on the Mississippi river from Aitkin
to La Prairie and Grand Rapids, of
which George N. Houghton, the vet
eran steamboat man of the upper Mis-
sissippi, was captain. Sutton was the
captain of a rival boat 1t so happened
that, while making one of their regular
trips, both boats were caught fast in
a log jam, where they were held captive
for thirty-two days, the delay entail
Ing considerable expense and damages
on the steamboat operators. Live stock
and horses on board had to be turned
into the woods for forage; passengers,
whose fare had been paid, were COM
PEELED to complete their journey a la
NOASy . dIIlyB dIAu fdludUIS IIIIIG was
lost In September following, Eustis,
Neal & Co. brought suit against a
number of prominent lumber manu-
facturers of Minneapolis, including G.
A. Smith & Co., Itasca Lumber COM
pany, J. B. Bassett & Co., Hall & Du-
cey Lumber company, J. w. Day &
Co., T. ]. Carney, H. C. Hanke and
others for damages in obstructing nav
igation by not keeping their logs NOV
ing in the river. The case was tried
before Judge Hicks Gin February, 1890.
The plaintiffs case was nearly all in
when defendants attorneys Zone Of
whom was A. J. Shores) had William
E. Neal recalled for cross-examination
they having been unable to get Eustis
himself on the stand, and asked him
(NeaD If he had not sworn to the fact
in the fall Of 1888, in the district court
Of Aitkin county, that there was no
such firm in existence as Eustis, Neal
& Co.
VII.
The rest of the story may be told
in the testimony Of Mr.. Neal as copied
by a representative Of The Globe
from the transcript Of the testimony
now on file in the office of c. N. Dickey.
clerk of the district court for the
Fourth judicial district
Mr.. Neal, under cross-eXamination by
A. j. Shores, then a MINNEAPOLIS at