Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-03-27
\, ), Mills to Sue EIgin Dairy
Company for $685.
FRANCIS G. LUKE SCORED.
Merchants Protective Association
Comes Ia Tor Some Extensive Mo-
tlcc In the complaints

A suit fun of much lurld language Is
about to be filed IN the Third district
court by H. s. Minis of this city, ana
although the Engn Creamery Dairy Is
the defendant In the action many aori-
monous charges are made against f,
q. Luke the well known collecting
agent of this city The amount sueu
for Is Sl2,Ul5. most Vt which the pam
IN demands as PREPARATION for the ma.
initiation he has been subjected to anP
the loss TO his standing In the business
world because of the alleged false ana
fraudulent prosecution he received az
the hands of the defendant ana Francis
G Luke as rs agent
The case originates In debt Of S4i.D
that Is claimed 10 have been due the
defendant by H. ". Jones. The plaintlit
In the present suit emphatCally de-
clares In his complaint that he ala not
owe the Elgn company one cent ana
furthermore that company sWeiled
Jones debt from the sum named to
SGg1j. Now Mr., Minis declares thN me
Elgin company entered into consplr-
acy with MIR. Luke TO nstl-
tute proceedings against Jones and
to make Mills one Of the defendants
because, says Mills they thought ne
would pay the same to escape the Wen
known oppressive and distressing
measures ana means usually adopted
by said Luke ana the expense Of de-
Tending against the same
Mills alleges that the creamery COM
pany secured the services Of Luke for
that very reason, knowing him 10 De
pretended scientific collector OF hon
est debts and 80 adyertises and
holds himself out to the public; and
said Luke adyertises his business un-
der the euphonious and attractive
name Of "The Merchants Protective
Association and that said Luke as
pretended Scientific collector Of
honest debts" has 80 conducted his
business generally by resOrtng to op-
pressye, distressing and disreputable
measures against those whom he has
heretofore held claims for collection.
that he has won for himself In his said
business, the reputation generally Of
being an oppressive, unfair and un-
scrupulous collector In his means and
measures for carrying on his business
The complaint alleges that on
the 9Th OF March Of the present
year Che defendant company made Il
appear that The plaintiff was Jointly
Indebted to II with Jones and consplred
with Luke TO bring suit against him
and Jones and 20 sue out an attach.
ment against them ana TO follow up the
attachment with punishment proceed
ings and 10 thus Cow this plaintiff into
paying this claim rather than TO be
oppressed and distressed by said Luke's
fisreputable methods That the said
defendant In furtherance Of It's said
conspiracy with Luke, did falsely and
fraudulently then and there swell and
pad It's alleged claim against said
Jones Individually from about $3.50 10
a false and fraudulent claim of SG2I2
against said Jones and this plaintiff
Jointly. well knowing as the business
manager and officers OF said defendant
did al the time that they had no hon
est or lust claim against this plaintiff
for any amount whatever and well
knowing as they did, that this palntft
did not owe said defendant herein one
cent or any other amount"
The complaint states that the matter
was placed IN the hands Of Luke and
on the 1th Of the present month The
plaintiff received a summons to appear
before Justice Kroegers court within
10 days and defend himself on
judgment would be rendered against
him 10 the amount named that there
upon this plaintiff well knowing the
reputation Of the said Luke for the
use Of oppressive distressing and 9TH
erwise dlsreputable methods all as
hereinbefore mentioned and refusing
TO he blackmailed or held up by the
defendant ana said Luke and as
means Of defense against Luke's we'll
known methods, sought the service Of
an attorney through whom in due time
he did file M. answer in the fraudulent
and wanton suit
II Is further alleged that on the 18th
Inst the defendant filed AN affidavit
OF It's secretary and business manager
G. II, Wilson which formed the basis
for O writ Of attachment against the
property Of the plaintiff that the aii-
davit contained many false things
among them being that the plaintiff
was about 70 dispose Of his
property for the purpose of defrauding
the defendant II Is further alleged that
Luke had am Illegal and void order