The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-04-26

represented and pretended, falsely and
fraudulently. to the plaintiff. that he
had control of large amount of cor
pcration business, the fees of which
would amount TO, at least six thousand
dollars per year, and that he had con-
troll OF the Schwabacher business,
thereby intending to convey to this
plaintin the idea and make plaintiff
believe that he had control of the busi-
ness of the corporation known as
Sehwabacher Bros. CO., which was do
ing business in Seattle King County,
+ Washington, and the defendant then
and there falsely and fraudulently stat
ed to plaintiff for the said fraudulent
purposes, that the business of said corr
poration of Schwabacher Brothers Co.
for the quarter ending prior to said
time amounted to the sum of Fifteen
hundred dollars
5-That the defendant falsely and
frauduIently and with the in
tent aforesaid. represented and
pretended that the Abrahans Gro
cery CO.. which was a corporation en-
gagged in the grocery business in said
city Of Seattle, was indebted to him
in the sum of seven hundred and fifty
dollars in fees and that the same
would be paid In few days from said
! time.
6--That the said defendant also fraud
ulentiy and falsely represented and
pretended to the plaintiff. for the pur-
pose aforesaid, that the Ancient Order
Of United Workmen owed him the sum
of seven hundred and fifty dollars IN
one case and five hundred in another
case, which would be paid In a few
days, and that there was something
over twelve hundred dollars owing to
him which would be paid to him in a
very few days from said date.
THAT the defendant falsely and
| fraudulently and with the fraudulent
intent aforesaid. represented and pre-
tended to this plaintiff that j. B. Met
calfe and ]. S. Jurey. now doing busi-
ness under the firm name of MetcaIfe
and Jurey, were indebted to him IN
near the sum of twelve hundred dol
lars for money collected by them for
the firm OF Metcalfe, Little s. Jurey
for which they had failed to account
to him.
S-That the defendant also fraudu-
lently and falsely represented and pre-
tended with the purposes and intent
as aforesaid, to this plaintiff that he
was doing business for the Puget
Sound National Bank of Seattle and
was attorney for said bank, and that
in very short time he would have the
whole business of said bank, and that
the said bank at that time owed him
fees for services rendered for said bank.
9-That the defendant further falsely
and fraudulently and with the purposes
aforesaid, represented and pretended
to the plaintiff that he had been at the
head of a large firm in the City. of
Parsons. in the State of Kansas. and
that said firm was the owner of a large
law library, and that he had sold his
interest in said law library to the other
members of said firm after he moved TO
the City of Seattle, Washington.
10-That the defendant further for
the purposes aforesaid, falsely and
fraudulently represented and pretended
to this plaintiff that he was learned in
law, had had great experience in prac-
tice; was good advocate and a fine
lawyer and especially learned in COR
poration law.
11-That this plaintiff believed said
representations and relied upon them
and was induced thereby TO form CO.
partnership with the defendant and
was further thereby induced to loan
TO the defendant the sum of s1s5.e0 up
on the agreement and promises of the
defendant to Immediately refund the
same to him out of the fees which the
defendant then and there falsely and
fraudulentIy represented and pretend
ed were due to him as aforesaid.
12-That all the said representations
of the defendant were false and known
to be false by him at the time That
the defendant never was appointed
Circuit Judge of any Circuit Court in
Indiana and never was elected Circuit
Judge in said State. and never did serve
out an unexpired term as Circuit Judge
in the State of Indiana all of which
was well known to the defendant at the
tire he made said representations.
13-That the defendants representa-
ton that ne was at the head Of the
leading law firm in Parsons, Kansas,
and had a large practice in said State,
was false and known to be false by the
defendant at the time and the plain
tiff alleges the fact to be that the de-
fendant. never did have large and
Continued on page p