The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1905-02-23
WAS COSTLY BOOZE.
Clever Whisky Salesman Fraudulent
ly Secures Promissory Notes
From Farmers.
Farmer Sued For 500 on Note But
Justice Refuses to Render a
Judgment for Plaintiff.

There are lot of farmers in close
proximity to Princeton who will
readily acknowledge that whisky
sold by an itinerant salesman some
times comes pretty high. When two
quarts of whisky cost farmer 500
certainly it can safely be said that our
farmers are getting to be high rollers.
But he laughs best, it is said, who
laughs last; and several farmers who
''bit'' at the whisky bargains last
summer are doing the laugh act them
selves.
Last June slick, smooth, suave
hold-up artist and all-around crook,
came to Princeton, and was soon can
vassing the farmers for fine brand
of whisky. He did we'll. How could
he help doing we'll. By trick. and de-
ception he made small orders for
whisky the most genuine of promis-
sorry notes. He would secure the
farmers signature to what was sup
posed by the farmer to be mere or
der. but which was a signature to a
blank note.
To what extent this clever operator
worked his game is not known, but he
probably left Princeton with several
hundred dollars in good hard cash.
His name was G. Lawrence, at least
for the purpose Of working his game.
Mr.. Lawrence in the course of his
travels called upon William Newman
north Of town, and after a long talk,
induced Mr.. Newman to give him an
order for two quarts of whisky for
which he was to pay ninety cents, on
delivery at the depot. Lawrence gave
Newman a paper to sign stating it
was an order for the goods, and Mr..
Newman says he was positive it was
an order and not a note, but when a
short time ago the holder of the note
showed him the real thing, due six
months from last June, Mr.. Newman
had to admit it was on him. But he
refused to pay the note, stating that
it was secured by fraudulent means.
Suit was brought in Justice Chad
bourne's court for payment. Mr..
Newman secured the services of Chas.
Keith, who made answer to the CON-
plant, and based his answer on Sec
ton 2239 of the general statutes,
which provides that there can be no
collection or recovery on any note or
contract where it is proven that said
instrument was secured by fraudulent
representation. The law which was
passed in 1898 provides that no per-
son can be held for payment on any
note, bill or contract so secured. The
courts attention was called to this
wise provision of the law, and after
hearing the evidence rendered his de-
cision in favor of the defendant, with
1861 costs for plaintiff to get the test.
Justice Chadbourne says that years
ago when acting as justice he has
given judgment in what he was posi-
tive were similar cases, to plaintiff,
but then there was no provision in the
statutes to protect the buncoed farmer.
The law maker who in 1893 secured
the passage of that law ought TO have
a holiday in his honor. II ~
But Mr.. Newman was not the onlv
farmer who did business with Law
renee. One of his neighbors ordered
a gallon of whisky for which he was
to pay So. Lawrence had his hand
bandaged when he was selling to Mr..
Newman's neighbor. and he requested
the farmer to sign the blank order
which he did, and it proved to be a
note for $3.50.
Carl Gropentine is one of the pat
rons of Lawrence. His order proved
to be a note, which he says he doesn't
think he will pay -...
It is said that some of Lawrence s.
victims have paid for their experience,
but there are a number who say
they will never pay for the notes
which they claim were fraudulently
secured.
Lawrence sold his forged paper be-
fore leaving Princeton. He was anx-
ious to leave suddenly when he fin
ished his business, and did not wait
to take the train, but hired rig and
drove to Elk River. He was thought
ful enough to settle for his hotel bill,
but beat the livery out of what he
owed them.
The Newman case will be appealed.
Was Afraid 1t Was a Dog.
GeOrge Rigel0W of SANTIAGO mas IN