The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1909-12-08

plaintiff until September IL, 1908, and
were never acknowledged before any
notary public by W alter }. Reed or the
plaintiff. She alleges that no consid-
Grafton ever passed for the property.
that there was never a delivery of an
executed deed for it; that it was the
express understanding that the deeds
given David c. Reed in blank were to
be returned for approval and legal
execution.
Fraud Is Charged.
She says that David Z. Reed took
the deeds and induced the plaintiffs
to sign them in bad faith and with a
sense of fraud; that he never intended
to fill them out as directed and return
them; that he never did do so, but
that he conveyed his brothers prop
erty to himself in the following items:
Lots 10 and 16 in block Z; lot in
block b; lots 4, 5, 6, I, s, 8, 10, Il
is, 10 and 20 in block III, Home adj
dition, North Yakima; northwest
quarter southwest quarter northwest
quar,er 1923, e. W. M; west half
southeast quarter and south half
northwest quarter and southwest
quarter northeast quarter 2S-16-17;
northwest quarter northwest quarter
2S-16-17; an undivided half interest
in lots 80 and 81 in block So and
lots 2S and 20 IN block So and lots
IL and j. in block 207.
1t is claimed that within the past
few months Professor Reed has sold
certain portions of the said property
and has realized large sums of money
WHICH he keeps for himself and APP
propriates for his own use. That I'M
less he is restrained he will dispose
of the remainder of it and thus de-
prive the estate of much of its real
worth.
Untruth Obvious.
one interesting phase of the case
and which tends to cast a reflection
on the truth of the allegations of the
plaintiff with regard to the charge of
fraudulent intent in a published inter-
view in which Professor Reed states
that he employed Attorney McAulay
to visit Gle Elum and appraise certain
properties before sale was made.
Attorney McAulay denies, according
to the report, his having been engage
ed for any such purpose or that he
visited Gle Elum. The difference in
the value of the properf.-.in question,
100000 and the price received for it,
$4,000, is a considerable amount and
when the further fact is known that
the sale was made to Mr.. Reeds sis
ter, Mrs. Steiner, it appears that the
widow of the late senator and his ex-
ecutrix, has been the victim of sharp
practice, at least in this instance
alone, for it is seldom, it is claimed, a
man sells real estate for $4,000 iess
than it is worth if the property be-
longs to him in the first place.
The interview goes on to express
the opinion of the plaintiff that the
transaction was mere Subterfuge
That Mrs. Steiner had threatened to
contest the will and that Professor
Reed, not desiring his alleged shady
transactions aired in court, sold this
property to Mrs. Steiner on these
terms for the sole purpose of prevent
ing a law suit.
The principal thing that makes the
authenticity of the alleged interview
doubtful is the fact that many vel
informed people do not believe the
property worth more than the price
contracted for of $4,000.
The case is naturally attracting
widespread attention and will no
doubt result in a long drawn out legal
battle.
Mrs Steincr's Statement.
ITO The Herald:
I'm yesterday evenings Republic
appeared an article pertaining to the
late Walter J. Reed and his estate
and seeking to cast reflections upon
my brother Superintendent d. c. Reed
and myself.
Mr.. Reed will be called upon to
defend in court the suit mentioned in
the article and inasmuch as the pa
pers in the case have not yet been
served upon him, he prefers to remain
silent at this time. but ] feel under
no such restraint or obligation to re-
main silent.
THE article referred to, in one place
states that The widow asserts that the
Gle Elum land deal was made on the
peculiar basis of one-eighth value OF
the land and a nominal payment down
in order to quiet the Steiners.'
"Such an assertion is absolutely
false in every particular. The price
paid for the land was its fair value
according to the judgment of the best
and most prominent business men OF
Gle Elum, and the purchase was sim
ply as an ordinary investment.
at is further stated in the article
that the estate of Walter J. Reed has
dwindled until it consists of little
more than two certain pieces of prop
erty and that the greater part of the
real estate has been conveyed to u
C. Reed by means of certain blank
deeds. This also is false.
Was Poor Spinster.
But if it has appeared to dwindlt
nnnnSs.<.s~an-..AaaD~n