The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-12-24
FRAUD IS ALLEGED !
IN DEAL FOR FARM
L. J. ellis Says Jonathan I,or.,,
and Thomas Homer Misren'' =
resented Facts.
B0ISTERED UP pRETENSIOyc
WITH ENTHUSIASTIC TlIy IT
Plaintiff Declares He Was Va.
tim of Too Much Confidence q
in BrOther-in-Lsw.

T.. j. ellis has instituted an ac,;..
the district court in which bo oL
iona than Lowell ond Thomas Ho,rS-
fraud and misrepresentation Il, ",'a
with the purchase OF n farm r. .s~s''r
MGR on June f. 1909. Two thousand ,o' "'
hundred dollars Is asked as d,r.,
this sum being the alleged .voss.
paid 10 Homer above the acu,s, ,.,, p'"e
the farm. "e q
The complaint sets ont that cu,
Lowell had been hrothers-in.I,.. '.'
twelve years. and that c;ius boa iOt
Tor Loyell when the latter was the m,s
aS"r OF II farm in Montana. The man nan
ness and family relations bc,vnanD Dusi-
two were very close. tho cornri,,..h t1s
and Gills accepted everything A. AT
that was told him by Lowell. tue
The Negotiations.
The complaint says: "Tha, IN. Ill.
tiff arrived in Salt Lake civ s W,, Rlan' IN
fore midnight of June :. 1909: tbat r,.9e -
tiffs wife had been visiting her psn. eIs.o
az INC home ot ths defendant Lors'
for about tcn days before Tho n,,Ir',,en,,
arrival The defendant Lowell had hd"hns h..
telling plaintiffs wife that ho knn..s
n splendid farm within ten miles az e., e
Lake which could he bought cher, ss4 ga!
which was for sale by thc defendant Ho po'
lneL. ana hAd talked great deal ara
at length and with enthusiasm with 1a h.a
Of the merits OF the farm. It's chssn,,a...lr ,..r
| and OF the merits of his friend Uarrs
that on the evening OF June : A.
hours before the plaintiffs arrival. H.
| defendant Lowell took the pnin,ifrs uits
his own wife and the paintifrs sor ~.
a ride In his automobile. and In the co,,rs. n.y.
| of the ride stopped near tho house ~ rs.
| defendant Homer. and brought Hor,er =,
the automobile and introduced him IN ~"
| plaintiffs wife as the man who had ~.
| bargain in the way OF farm oi ~hISs
| Homer said the farm had prsctIeyIr
| been sold, and that some one had msss
| him an offer for il and had sent him !
! check for part payment TO bind ,hs
/ bargain: whereupon Lowell pyotestn5.
! saying that he had spoken 10 Homer Grt
! about the farm. and urged him not N
acknowledge the other offer and to Keen
the sale open
Says Was Plot.
All OF this dialogue. ellis says. was
false. preconcerted and made for th-
purpose of dcceiYing Gills' wife In he
| expectation that she would coInmunicats
the substance OF ii 10 hin.
On June 4, ellis says he went to Io.
mers office. where Homer read 10 hin
a paper which. purportcd To be Letter
from would-be purchaser, The letttr
represented to offer $1,000 in cash, slas4s
more i'm cash IN six months with Other
payments at intervals during two wears
when the total sum Of $4,000 would lavs
been paid. As an alternative, the pnr-
ported writer said he would raise Sfj
in cash IT ne could hut have the farm
ellis says the name OF the alleged writer
was not read TO him, nor did he zee ths
letter itself. lie says II was fraudulent
The defendants represented thai ths
! farm was not more than ten miles from
the city. whereas; al matter OF fsct,
il is eighteen miles. ellis says. and h
was taker 10 the farm In an automobile
that went so swiftly that he. being unac.
customC6 to riding in TINS means of
transport. could not accurately judge O.
! the distance. When they got 10 the fam
various fields and areas were polnlh
out 10 him, but he was not introduced 70
any of the occupants OF the house, aHd
the party remained there only lweAV
minutes.
Water Was insufficient
In the matter OF water ior irrisaisn'
ellis says he was also grossly decelyfc'
instead OF tho water rights going vim
the farm he was compelled 10 spend wy
To secure water. and then 0ld not ns, :
enough. While 1t was represented 70 nlal
that five acres were In orchard. msI'
| | were ONLY lND stClNSs pS sis''N'
ment. he rccites.
ellis then details the further iranas-
tions, how he was warned against ,ss, w,
ing the occupant Of the farm OF tno VI
because The occupant would be a, eyeseo,
ingly angry. albeit he was nesns.ls' .l'
farmer and would further neslec91 9. 20.
crops, that this occupant was ron rens-
svlvania and so forth but Gilis MAJ
not tell him OF the deal at all. cr.
Ii was represented 10 him. says y 1"o' a
! thar the owner OF the farm was 80
Reed OF PENNSYLVANIA. whereas as Z IL
ter of fact, the owner was N D. e'Va''
llc SAYS. ,.;,,,,s ssqs
Finally. on June 10. the plainIp,i. u. stss ~.
10 which time the corTIusr99" he'.snss W ths
defendants had not come 10 81 e. -
mcnt with CROKER. he was gwen ~. uIss
Tr maid $1,000 in cash or mon! ~ ,@, ,ts
[ and assumed a mortgage III idSVs S ssos ani
} MiddlcscX Banking company u s-Io G1s
gave a second mortgage i 10. ", mary
says the farm was s3iu 10 ga ,s''' ,hs amoar
} double its actual value and u.e I'm ~
: n9iI Croker and lie wants s-'%
'",n9G ,1r,,n 90 Nvers @ is attorney FOR the piai'
, Mr.. Homer Statement ~,
/ When Alr. Homer was asked dslIlrsd IdusSis 3
evening whether or not II, ,,s ..shori5
make any statement. ne S4i,o ,ar,e oAIsr-
after purCha sing this place III III and NJ.
T cnce arose between MI. -, 90 4, the shAs7
ellis. over "A lost opportonl.!, ,s"d 10 rrsn
q, u,.,i-r,, for. Mir Lowell. MY csIs H VI
] j.. unnnviablo. and think M '
Financially regret his action.
II Oh Music Rolls and BsS. NJ.
: i,,,oa "a o Wns,c Co. 1923 A'r