The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1902-04-17

PRIL II, 1902.
put $1,000 into the deal and make a
few thousand dollars. Deans saidihe
thought the matter looked tempting
but was not satisfied with the appear
ance of the transaction He said that
Remer told him he (Remer) had loaned
,Bridgman money, and that he alsothad
to pay Stewart the sum of $780,, or one
dollar an acre to settle lis pendens
against the land. County Commits
sioner Libby was also examined as to a
similar proposition from Remer, though
Mr.. Libby's testimony was not specific
enoughito be of any consequence, and
so far as the court was concerned it
was OF the opinion that all this testi-
mony was worth little or nothing, but
the Judge suffered it all to go in. Land
Agent Erickson of Milaca was put on
the stand to testify as to certain land
contracts made for portions of the land
that Remer claimed to have bought
from Bridgman, and the evidence
showed how Remer hurried over from
st. Cloud and informed Erickson that
Bridgman had died, and how Erickson
had fastened over to St. Cloud. when
informed OF the death of Bridgman,
the testimony Indicating that the par
ties to the transaction. were much ex-
ercised over the demise of Bridgman,
and that there was a mixup of some
kind in land transactions involving the
lands described in the lost Cook-Remer
deed. 1t was noon when the evidence
was all in and a. lot that the court
didn't care continental for. The at
torneys, evidently out of consideration
for the court who had been waiting
patiently for the half-hour's hearing to
close, submitted the case without final
arguments.
The judge will not render his opinion
in the matter right away. The case is "a
most important one and will eventually
be. carried to the supreme court. 1t is
said that the lands involved in the deal
are worth 5000 at the present time,
and Mr.. Deans testified that the lands
at the time of the transaction had a
reasonable cash value of So to SO per
acre. They went to Remer in single
transaction for the small sum of 81 1900
but Remer. claimed that he had lot
of extra expense in the way of claims
against the land. ... ...
Some of the evidence that was intro
duced and which was really not GER
name to the point involved, was of a
|Eeharaeter to attern pit to inpeachrthe
testimony of Remer,: and as Attorney
Sullivan remarked the plaintiffs at
torneys desired to have it appear that
the Cook-Remer deed was forgery,
and involved some very questionable
methods. When the testimony was in
troduced that went to show that Remer
had after Bridgman was dead made
propositions to several parties to take
an interest in the Bridgman lands.
Remer was put back on the stand and
stated that his overtures to certain
parties we're concerning other Cook
lands than the ones involving in the
missing deed, and Remer remarked
that he was after all the lands held by
Bridgman and would have secured
them had Bridgman lived another
month. Taylor & jerks of St. Cloud
and Chas. Keith of Princeton repre-
sented the plaintiff, while J. D. Sulli-
van of St. Cloud was attorney for Zins
and Stewart & Brewer of St. Cloud for
Remer.
After dinner Friday Judge Searle
listened to the testimony in a counter
claim in the case of Adcock VS.. Rush.
The original case, an action for 81, 900
damages, was on the calendar at the
September term and by stipulation it
was continued to the present term, but
shortly before the present term of
court opened the defense filed with it's
answer a counter claim for the sum of
S36. SO, the amount due Rush from Ad-
COCK in settlement of the first years
lease for the Rush ranch. Rush and
the lessee have been having lot of
trouble in trying to agree on certain
matters relating to the fulfllment of
the terms of the lease. In justice
court at Milaca last winter Rush got a
judgment against Adcock for $50,
which amount after considerable trou-
BILE was collected from Adcock. In
Justice Chadbourne's court last week,
before the hearing in the district court
an action for unlawful detainer brought
by Rush against Adcock, was heard,
taking up two days time, the case be-
ing jury trial. Rush in his complaint