Iditarod pioneer., 1917-03-17
SENSATIONAL SUIT FILED IN FOURTH DISTRICT COURT
 BY MARSHALL CITY MINER

A suit in which some startling charges are made against well-known residents Of the Marshall camp and involving title to valuable mining ground on Willow creek, in that district, has been filed in the dis trict court by Charles E. Taylor on behalf of Charles Bowman The gist of the com plaint is that the plaintiff has been de | frauded out of his interests by men who took advantage of his mental weakness and incapacty, induced by an accident some years ago, which rendered him incapable of protecting his interests.
 The defendants named in the case are :: | Albert Edwards the wel-known trader of l the lower Yukon; Frank H. Wasky, for mer commissioner of Wade Hampton pre- cinct, and one of Alaska's first delegates in congress, and his wife R. M. Palmer, Gus Heyne and Gus Lysel.
 Alleges Incapacity
 Charles Bowman, the plaintiff, states in his complaint that he is a resident of | Alaska, over the age of 62 years, and that | for the most part of his life he has been 8 sailor by occupation. In 1913 he fell a distance of forty feet, more or less, down the hold of the steamer Eureka, at the port l of St. Michael, Alaska, thereby fracturng i his skull and otherwise receiving perm anent | physical and mental injuries. He says that ever since said fall he has suffered from weakness of mind and body, and at times 1 becomes totally bereft of reasoning or will power, and that at all times since receiving said injuries he has been easily influenced and controlled by others.
 Purchases Mining Interests
 He alleges that in May, 1915, at Seattle, at the solicitation of one Robert E. Barr, an acquaintance of long standing he purchased from said Barr certain mining interests and property in Alaska, including an undivided one half interest in mining claim No. be- low discovery, on Willow creek, and an undivided one-half interest in mining claim Mo- below discovery, on Willow creek, in Wade Hampton precinct. That the said Barr executed and delivered deed to plaintiff for the said property, which was recorded in the auditors office at Seattle That the actual and agreed consideration for the property was Sl00 cash and the fur ther payment of all expenses of the sad Barr from Seattle to Marshall.
 The Stolen Deed
 In the spring of 1915, pursuant to such arrangement, plaintiff alleges he and Barr proceeded from Seattle to Marshall, and plaintiff took along the deed for the prop erty conveyed by Barr. On their arrival at Wade Hampton precinct plaintiff and Barr made camp near Willow creek and slept together i'll tent the first night of their arrival When plaintiff awoke the following morning he discovered that Barr had departed, and also that his valise, con taining his personal effects and the deed to the property, was stolen and gone. Plaintiff later found the valse some distance away, broken open, mutilated and destroyed. Plaintiff never thereafter recovered or saw the deed, and it was never recorded in Wade Hampton precinct. He accused Barr of stealing the valise and its contents, includ ing the deed, but Barr denied knowing any thing about it. Although requested to do so, Barr refused to make another deed, he says and refused to recognize plaintiff as a co-owner of the mining claims in ques tion. Plaintiff claims that he was aban- doned by Barr and left to his own resources and became destitute.
 Executes a Deed
 The defendant Albert E. Edwards was the proprietor of a roadhouse and store at Mar shall City, continues the complaint, and plaintiff became acquainted with him and told him of his troubles, and informed him of his former troubles and injuries, and thus Edwards became acquainted with plaintiffs mental weakness and incapacity. This defendant also became informed of plaintiffs ownership of said mining inter- ests Thereafter defendant hired plaintiff to cut wood and do chores around the road house and store of defendant. Plaintiff re- quested defendant to assist him in regain ing his mining interests from Barr After verifying the truth of plaintiffs statements, Edwards importuned plaintiff to sell his in terests to him, and plaintiff finally executed a deed of conveyance for an undivided one half of his interests in said mining prop erty Plaintiff was unfamiliar with the claims and ignorant of their value. Ed wards knew the value of the claims and was wholly familiar with the property, and knew 1t to be exceedingly valuable. De fendant also knew of plaintiffs mental in capacity, and knew that he was taking an unjust advantage of him.
 Allegations of Fraud
 The consideration named in the deed was $200, but in fact the plaintiff never received any consideration whatever, it is alleged, and plaintiff verify believed, and so told Edwards, that such conveyance signed by the plaintiff was of no effect whatever for the reason that plaintiff had lost his deed from Barr" He further says that he did not know the significance of his signing of the deed, and that he did not intend to dis pose of any of his rights and that defend ant "frauduently induced plaintiff to make such deed of conveyance and then and there took advantage of plaintiffs mental in capacity and weakness, with full knowledge of the same" The defendant had the deed recorded
 Deeds Remaining Interest
 Plaintiff further alleges that "at the time of his signing said deed he was not allowed to handle the same" and says there was no