The Bowbells tribune. [volume] (Bowbells, Ward Co., N.D.) 1899-1969, 1916-11-03

widow, we carefully refrained last
| week from printing all the truth
| in regard to the matter, but mas
| much as Mr.. Lambert has admitted
publicly that he procured the
Niehus mortgage for the widow,
we are prepared to tell the rest Of
| it. According to Lambert in pay
ment of the widows judgment he
| received the Siebold-Niehus mort
gage, for $1570., accumulated in
terest, 1920, total $3.50. If she
| received this, why all these other
mortgages that show up in the
widows. story? This is what
happened: Lambert took the as
signment of the mortgage in his
own home The records show it,
so he lied when he said he made
Niehus turn it over to the widow.
After he got his claws on it, he
went to another widow, Sophia
Siebold, who owed the $3.50. and
exchanged the mortgage for four
others as follows:
One to the Security Mortgage
Loan Co., for $1,000. out of which
Lambert got cash $425.
A second mortgage to same com
pany for $17O.50 (interest mort
gage.)
A third mortgage to Lille Lam
bert for $665.
A fourth mortgage to Anna B.
Remund, which he condescended
to give the widow, $500.
Total, $3.50.
We have in our possession the
check from the Security Mortgage
Loan Company to F. B. Lambert,
which under the exchange of mort
cages, belonged to the widow Re-
mund, but Lambert endorsed the
check. This he got in addition to
the amount we charged him with
| in "The Widows Story"
Lambert Sc" Campaign Commit
tee" says the start was a lie, but
| the deny only as to the amount of
money the widow received. She
swore On her oath that she receiv>
ed only SIS. Lambert's- Cam
paign Committee denies it, and
attempts to fortify their statement
by saying that the whole thing was
explained to the widow "by Ger
man friend and neighbor, II. o.
Dalen." Here is what Mr.. Dalen
says:
Minot. N. D., October 80, 1915.
Statement of H. o. Dalen.
I know nothing about the settle
ment between Lambert and Mrs.
| Remund. and I am not German
| and do not speak German. If the
$500 receipt by Anna Remund was
witnessed by me, it was simply in
a business transaction in which |
was asked to sign as a witness. l
have read the widows receipt. and
l have no recollection Of ever see
ing it's contents before. If any
money was paid Mrs. Remund
through me or the bank, it would
have been by check from Lambert.
| and I have no recollection of the
transaction at this time. am
not taking any active part in the
campaign On either side.
H. o. Dalen.
Mr.. Dalen for two years had an
Office in the suite with Lambert,
and it is strange that Lambert
never learned that Mr.. Dalen was
a Norwegian; but ne has reached
such an extremity in the matter
that he is drawing his innocent
| friends into the contemplate pro-
! ceeding.
It is apparent if Lambert paid
| the widow $500 he would have
! some record of it, and he laid too
| great a burden on Mr.. Dalen when
| he expected him to back him up.
! Lambert has offered no record that
he ever paid more than the widow
claims, except the receipt which the
| widow in her affidavit says she
signed at his request $50 she would
get the money"
Lambert does not deny that he
mortgage, $1.25 recording fees and
$425 out of the first mortgage,
making q total of $1141.25 but he
attempts to justify himself by
saying she got $500 of this!
| This brings us to the question:
How much is it worth to collect a
widows wages? Lambert at re-
cent speech in Sawyer says he had
an agreement with her to receive
half of the Judgment if he collected
her wages. .-
The making of such an unrea-
sonable contract under the circum-
stances, is enough to bat him from
the society Of honest men.
If he agreed to give her half.
why don't he?
Does the widows receipt as pub
lished by Lambert sound like she
knew what was in it? It is tech
nical, verbose, and sounds like
Lambert covering criminal tracks.
Lambert says the widow signed
the receipt and took the fourth
mortgage on this farm because she
wanted some ready cash. The
cash, $425 of it, was ready cash in
Lambert's pocket on April 10. 1909.
According to his explanation he
gave her. $500 and kept 1925 of the
cash in sight. But this does not
explain why, he took q good mort
gage for himself and gave her q
Fourth one that proved 'yorthleas:
The relation D. Of attorney and
client issa @relat Ion Of trust. Was