The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1908-11-11

Owing to politics or something
else the present term of court pro-
gressed in very sleepy sort of a
fashion. Three civil jury cases
were commenced but none Of them
were fought through. Klossner VS..
Nelson being compromised and set
tied before witeess was sworn; in
Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co.
VS.. Crowly a verdict was instructed.
the defendants failing to offer any
proof, and Newton VS.. Truedson
being abandoned by plaintiff after
the first witness was sworn. In this
case the court ordered that his testi-
mony be taken before the grand jury
then in session to be considered for
perjury in giving it. The jury
found that he had committed per-
jury and indicted the witness and
he was placed under $1,000 bail pend
ing his plea to the indictment.
The case is a most unusual one.
Witness Newton, the father of the
plaintiff, some years ago owned a
good farm somewhat mortgaged, in
Springdale township, and entered
into negotiations with one Horsewell
J of Minneapolis which resulted in a
n trade of this farm for one in Scott
K county about the same size, but
\ heavily mortgaged. There is but
little doubt that Newton made a
! very unfortunate trade and really
4 gave his farm away, as the property
A was worth nothing above the mort
\ gage.
II Horsewell came down to NeWton's
4 Redwood county farm and stayed
with him over night, while talking
iup the trade. In the morning New
II ton and Horsewell went to Walnut
Grove with deed to the Springdale
farm, signed by both Newton and
wife. 1t was taken before Mr.. Golf,
either a justice or notary for &C
acknowledgement, Golf testifying that
Newton told him that Newton's
wife did not wish to come in but
that he, Golf, knew her signature
and could certify to it. Mr.. Golf,
uncertain whether he ought to com
ply or not, says he required Mr.
Newton to take an oath that his wife
- had signed the deed. 1t was certl
fed and taken to the bank of L.
Garlock, where it and money to pay
taxes were sent on by either Newton
or the bank to the courthouse al
Redwood Falls. Mrs. Newton
: claimed that her signature was 9
forgery and that therefore the deed
was void as to the homestead eighty
and she and her husband after some
years executed deed to this eighty
20 their son who brought this suit
against Truedson, an innocent pur'
- chaser, who has since purchased the
farm. Newton testified that his
: wife did not sign the deed in his
| presence, although he admitted thai
she knew all about it and that the
deed was being made; that he signed
It at Goff's office and at that time
- lis wife's name was not on the
Iced; that it did not look like hel
signature and at one time he said N
lnew she had not signed the deed
after her husband had testified sh'
vas shown the original deed t.
=. Iorsewell and admitted that sh'
vas mistaken and that the signatur,
vas in her handwriting. Mrs. New
OH is in poor health and was on tn,
Eerge of a nervous collapse whel
he found the dilemma her HUSBAND
as in as a result of testifying il
ne case.
The Newton's claim that at the
me of the trade Horsewell toll
hem that he held the mortgage OF
lie Scott county farm and if the.
ERE unable to meet payments the,