The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-03-29

SH'EVLIN .,,,sss
BROTHERS CHARGE
Millionaire Lumberman's Answer
to Allegations of Fraud
Fe,9 in Lumber Deal.
Instead of Defrauding, He Says,
He Helped Brother to
Make Thousands.
Alleges That f. g. shevlin, Thru
Drink, Was Compelled to
Leave Position.


Thomas II. shevlins answer to the
sensational charges made by ms
brother, Edwin c. Shevlin. In suit
for $350,OOO for stock in lumber COM
panies alleged to have been secured
by fraud, is to the effect that the
PLAINTIFF was fairly and eauitably dealt
with, was in possession Of full knoWl-
edge of the nature OF the transac-
tons involved, and, indeed, that ne
received more for MS STOCK imam II
was actually worth.
The suit Of Edwin c. Shevlin, as full
ly outlined in T h o u n a three
months ago, is based upon charges
that he was persuaded by his brother
to part with stock in the Crookston
and the st. Hilaire lumber companies MES
worth about 100000 for $4,000; that
this stock has increased an additional
100000 in value, and that he was
persuaded to make the sale while Ill
In bed from the excessive use of In
toxicants and In a mental condition
which made 1t impossible for him to
comprehend the nature or extent OF
the transaction proposed by his
brother.
The answer, a manuscript or l4l
felios, presents the transaction In an
altogether different light. 1t depicts
Thomas H. Shevlin as acting In
semipaternal manner toward E. e.
Shevlin, alleged In sensational para
graphs to be a dissipated mentally
unbalanced, unreliable and ungrate-
full brother. ,..a .r
As Told in the Answer.
A resume of the stock transactions
between the brothers as set out at
length in the answer is as follows: IN
1895 Thomas H. Shevlin gave his
brother, E. G. Shevlin, $4,000 worth
of j. Neils Lumber company stock as
a wedding present; In July, 1897, the
plaintiff bought at less than par value,
$1,000 worth of stock in the same
company, and gave in return his note
for $4,000; in 1898 the plaintiff was
made manager of the Crookston Lum-
Der company at salary of $500 a
shares of stock for which he gave his
note; in 1899 he traded his $4,000
worth of J. Neils Lumber company
stock for $4,000 worth of stock IN the
Saint Hillaire Lumber company.
The plaintiff remained as manager
of the Crookston Lumber company UNI
It'll Jan. Is, 1900, when habitual drunk
enness is alleged to have caused
Themes shevlin,s associates to COM a.
plain Of him and forced the oeIenoaht
+ to ask for his brothers resignation n
and the surrender Of his stock in the
two companies which were close cor
porations and operated upon the
money and credit of Thomas II. Shev-
lin, Frank Hixon and Hovey Clark.
At this time, the defendant alleges
he figured up the book value Of his
brothers holdings, including all the
profits made by the use of other peo-
Dle's money, and found that they were
valued at about $4,000: Again he al.
sIeges he gave his relative the best OF II
and paid him $4,000 Tor ms STOCK ~.
giving back to E. C. Shevlin notes fol
$4,000 which he had given for the
stock and on which he had never pa1c
interest; $4,000 in cash and Thomas
shevlin's notes for $4,000 bearing in.
terest which amounts to, $4,000 pei
year paid quarterly since 1900.
In the language of the answer
''Said defendant has so justly and fair
ly and equitably dealt with and treated
this plaintiff, that by said transfe
and retransfer, this plaintiff, Withou
the Investment Of a single dollar II
such enterprises, or in such stocks
and without in any way contributing
to the success or prosperity OF tn
enterprises Of said companies or eithe
of them, in less than two yeras' time
after wholly neglecting and refusin
to carry out his promises and agree
ments, made and realized a complet
profit of nearly $4,000, and that dur
ing said time, to-wit, said two year.
he drew salary from the said Crook
ston Lumber company OF $4,000 pc
year"
1t is further alleged that tn eplainti
was highly pleased to accept the con
ditfons of this transfer and has sine
travelled for his health, ruined b
drink, has sustained the most fr1endl
relations toward defendant and h
family, and has allowed nearly fou
years to elapse before beginning tn
present action.
Delay in Action Cited.
A specific denial is entered to til
allegations Of the complaint "ths
plaintiff was at any time without fu
knowledge of the real and actual col
ditions of said companies" and speci
ically alleges that he at all times ha
full and free access to the books, p;
pers, plats and financial statemen
of said companies. Defendant flu
Their alleges that the annual financi
~ statements of both of said compani
M were completed early In January, 100
sPg8 and that defendant had full and con
9j2 plete knowledge in regard thereto
as had the plaintiff, and that tt
value fixed upon the plaintiffs stot
t.e was figured therefrom.
The exercise Of threats, improper Il
fuence or duress of any description
also specifically denied.
The plaintiffs alleged habitu
drunkenness is alleged and the detail
of defendants efforts to cure him
this habit are recited. It is affirmt
that the plaintiff became mentally i
capable thru excessive drink, that
was confined for time in an easter
sanatorium and was subject to me