Newspaper Page Text
IMMACULATE CLARK. How He Protects the Wid ow and Orphan. Like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky fell yesterday's Helena Record upon the placid minds of her citizens, who, at their matutinal meal, were struck as with terror dumb at the disclosure of the dastardly fraud perpetrated by Wm. A. Clark upon Mrs. Nannie H. Jones, widow of John H. Rogers, de ceased, whereby he wronged her to the amount of over $100,000, which, after a fair and full trial, he was compelled to disgorge. And this man is the democratic candidate for delegate to congress from Montana Territory. It must be understood that Granville Stuart was in no sense connected with the fraud or robbery of the widow. Let the voters rise in their might and rebuke the monster who by his own bad faith, has courted and deserved this scathing expose of his perfidy; while his trem bling henchmen hunt their nest-hiding lairs and with white lips to eaeh other whisper, the foe-they come! they come! THE COMPLAINT. Territory of Montana, Deer Lodge county-Second judicial district court. Richard S. Jones and Nannie H. Jones plaintiff, vs.'Wm. A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie, defendants. The plaintiffs Nannie IH. Jones and Richard S) Jones complain of the de fendants William A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie, for that the said plaintiff Nannie H. Jones is the wife of said plain tiff Richard S. Jones, having heretofore to-wit: in the year 1877 married him the said Richard S. Jones, and for that there fore to-wit: on the 28th day of July, A. D. 1874, at the county of Deer Lodge,she, the said Nannie H. Jones, was the wife of one John H. Rogers who then and there died, and was at the time of his said death seized in fee simple of [here follows a description of the property] and that by virtue of the law of said covert ures with him the said John H. Rogers and his said decease, she the said Nannie H. Jones, then Nannie H. Rogers, be came and WAS ENTITLED TO DOWER in and to the said premises and each and every part and portion thereof, and from the time of the decease as aforesaid down to the time of the making of the convey ance by deed hereinafter more particu larly set forth and described, she the said Nannie H.Jones was seized and possessed as her dower therein of the undivided one-third of said property and premises. And the plaintiffs further say that on the 2nd day of June, A. D. 1877, upon an or der of the probate court duly made and given upon proper proceedings therein, theretofore instituted and had, the inter est of the said John H. Rogers was sold at public auction to the highest bidder for cash by the administrator of the es tate of the said John II.Rogers, deceased, but such sale was subject to the right of the said Nannie H. Jones to dower in and to the said premises which was ex pressly recognized and reserved and ex cepted out of the said sale. And the said plaintiffs do further al lege that heretofore, to-wit, on the 25th day of October, 1877, the said Nannie H. Jones, then NANNIE II. ROGERSI, WIDOW, made and executed to the defendents 1 William A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie C a deed of quit claim and conveyance, and a then and there delivered the same to a them, whereby in form she conveyed to a them, the said William A. Clark and h Samuel E. Larabie, defendants, her dower 11 aforesaid, and each and every part and i parcel thereof, for the consideration, and J upon the payment by them of two hun dred and fifty dollars, to the said plain- I tiff Nannie H. Jones, which said sunm of a money these plaintiffs here and now of- a fer to return to himt the said William A. a ('lark upon the cancelation by a decree t of this court of the said deed, or upon a the conveyance by the said defendants to c her the said Naunie HI Jones, of the in- 7 terest so by her conveyed, and quit e claimed by her said deed to them the t said defendants. And the said plaintiffs allege that the I value of the interest of the said plaintiff c Nannie H. Jones in and to the said prem ises was at and before the. execution by her of the said deed to them the said a William A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie, I and yet is greatly in excess of the said I 1sum so by them paid as the consideration therefor, and the said deed so made, ex- I ecuted and delivered by her the said Nannie H. Jones (then Nannie IH. Rog ers), to them the said William A. Clark ald Samuel E. Larabie, was obtained and procured from the said Nannie IH, Jones through the F1A.\l), DECEIT AND FAIgE ItEPRIESENTA TIONS of then the said William A. Clark and :unnel E. Larabe, and the collusion by ItIhen with diverse and sundry parties nlld persons so to procure the same, and wais and ii as against the right of the said Nannie It, Jones null and void. The plaintiffl further say at the time of and prior to the sale of the interest in said premises of the said John H. Rogers, deceased, one Gen. W. Irvin was the ad niniistrator of the estate of him the said John II. Rogers, deceased, and conducted said sale, and was also ill and about the management, negotiation for sale and control of said premises, the agent for tills plaintiff. Naiie II. Jones, and so contilnued to lie such agent. down to and including the time of the executing of said deed, and that the said Nannie H. Jones was ignorant of the value of her said interest in the suaid premises, and had no other means of ascertaining the valuethereof except what she could learn frimt hersalda'.rent.and what it,or undivid ed interests in it, woildl bring in thile open market at public slale whin, it or interests in it should Ie offered for sale and sold at fair and free publlic sales, and that the said Nannie II. Jones relied upon such bids an maide and slllh ilifornmutio from her said agent as she could obtain as to 1 the VALUE OF SAID PREMISES, which facts were well known to the said defendants. And the plaintiffs further say that the said sale of an undivided in terest in said premises belonging to the estate of said John H. Rogers, conducted as aforesaid by the administrator afore said, George W. Irvin, purported to be a fair and free sale thereof, after due ad vertisement for cash in open market and 1 so appeared to be and was then by her the said Nannie H. Jones believed to be such fair sale as would enable the said estate to realize its full market value after such competitive bidding thereon as the value of said premises would ordinarily incite, and that at such sale the said interests of the estate of him the said John H. Rogers was sold to the said defendants William A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie, they being the highest bid ders therefor. DECEIVING THE WIDOW. And the plaintiffs further allege that shortly after said administrator's sale and before the execution by her the said Nannie H. Jones of the deed of her interest in said premises to said de fendants, the said defendants made application to the said Nannie H. Jones to purchase of her, her said interest in said premises, being her dower therein, and then and there stated to her that they were the owners and possessors of all other interests therein, and for that reason desired to purchase her said interest and were willing to pay to her therefor more than it was worth and more than it would bring in the open market if it were then offered for sale, and to induce the said Nannie H. Jones to sell her said Interest at less than it was worth and for $250 stated to her that $250 was more than the value of the in terest of her the said Nannie H. Jones in and to the said property and fraudulently concealed the true value thereof and en tered into a conspiracy to make immedi ate payment of $250 and precipitate sale as hereafter set forth and described. THEY LIE TO HER. And the said plaintiffs further say that at and before the time of the mak ing said statements and representations, and at and before the time of the execu tion and delivery of the said deed by her I the said Nannie H. Jones, the said de fendants were tenants in common in said premises with her the said Nannie H. Jones and were then exclusively working the same, and were familiar with its i value and that the said Nannie H. Jones I was not familiar with nor did she know I the value thereof, and in response tqothe application of the said defendants to pur chase as aforesaid she stated to them that the said George W. Irvin, who had I sold an interest in said property as ad ministrator as aforesaid was the manag ing agent of her the said Nannie H. Jones, I and that she would not sell the same up r on any know ledge which she had or might obtain of the value of said prem , ises, but only upon the advice and ap f proval of her said agent, George W. Irvin. Whereupon the said defendants, FRAUDULENTLY COMBINING to obtain the said deed from the said n Nannie H. Jones, did falsely cause it to C be represented to her the said Nannie c H. Jones among other things that the said George W. Irvin had advised the sale of the said interest of her the said Nannie H. Jones, to the said William A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie for the said t sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, and approved of such sale at said price, and that he the said George W. Irvin, c had written a letter stating as aforesaid his advice and approval thereof, for the B information of the said Nannie H. I Jones. Upon this statement as to the advice and approval of her said agent she relied and then and there believed the same, and that in the judgment of her said agent the said (the last named) sum was the just and full value thereof; and did also believe the further fact that in the open market at a full and fair sale with competitive hidding, the interest of the said estate in the said premises was at the time it was sold worth no more thaun two hundred dollars, which said repre sentations as to the advice and approval of the said sale by him the said George W. Irvin, at the price aforesaid, and the writing of a letter so stating, and as to sale of the said interest of the estate of the said John H. HIogers, at public auc tion in a full, fair, free and open market with competitive bidding therefor for two hundred dollars, and as to the value thereof, were WHIIOlY FRAUDULENT AND FALSE. and were so known to be at the time they were so made by him, ,the said de fendant; but the said Nannie H. Jones, relying upon their truth and believing them to be true, was thereby induced to make and deliver, and did make and de liver the deed aforementioned to them the said defendants, for the considera tion of two hundred and fifty dollars. And the plaintiffs further allege that as to the said sale of said interest of said estate at auction, the said defendants a combining and intendling to prevent competitive bidding therefor, and to de preciate the market value of the interest which the said Nannie 11. Jones then re tained therein, and to induce her to sell I the same for less than its true value, did e combline and conspire together and with CI others to prevent the said property from r bringing its full or market value, and to preventthe said sale from being free, fair d and open, and il pursuance of such com bination fltd conspiracy had given and did give a large sunl of Ilnyn,. to-wit, mlil r sum of two hundred dollars. TO ONE GRANVILLE STUART n in consideration that he would refrain 1 from bidding on said interest of scaid es n tate therein at said sale, which said ts Stuart did receive and did refrain from 4 bidding pursuant to his agreement thenr - e on for said consideration s., paid, ul h though he had to the tinte of sulch pay I ment to him of said mone designedi to bid on the same a much larger sum. And the plaintiffs say that notwith standing the said deed so given by her the said Nannie H. Jones for the fraud aforesaid is void and of no effect, it is nevertheless a cloud upon her said title, and that by reason thereof the legal title appears vested in the said defendants; and that by reason thereof they are in the exclusive possession of the said prem ises and property, and from the time of the delivery of said deed that the said defendants have been in the possession of said property to the exclusion of these plaintiffs, and have been engaged in ex tracting large quantities of silver and other precious metals of great value to wit, of the value, as plaintiffs are in formed and believe, of ONE IIUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and more therefrom, and are yet engaged in mining therefrom said precious metals and threaten to continue so to do. And plaintiffs say that by reason of *14 conveyance to the said defendans by tb plaintiff, Nannie H. Jones, of her sali interest in said premises, which was prior: to the issuance of a patent therefor by the United States, the said William A. Clark was enabled to and did apply for ( patent from the United States for the said premises in his own name and after wards, to-wit, on the fifth day of Novem her, A. D. 1878, did receive a patent therefore, by which the said premises were conveyed to him under the deactlp tion following, that is to say being min eral entry number 401, and being lot No. 39, in, and embracing a part of, township 3 north, of range 8 west of the principal meridian and containing 2 and 6-100 acres and described by metes and boupds in said patent, which is recorded in Book P of deeds, on page 227, et seq. of the rec ords of Deer Lodge county, Montana, in the county clerk and record's offi~ of said county. And the plaintiffs further say that the plaintiff, Richard 8. Jones, has an inter est as tenant by courtesy in and to the said premises and property, and that hU plaintiffs are entitled to the possessioentot the undivided one-third of the said prop erty so owned by him the said John H. Rogers at the time of his decease and to one-third of the proceeds of the ores taken out of the same by the said defend ants and to an accounting thereof. SHE LEARNS OF THE FRAUD. And the plaintiffs further allege that heretofore to-wit: On the 29th day of October, 1877, the said Nannie H. Jones having learned that her said agent had not advised or consented to said sale nor written the said pretended and alleged letter so advising and consenting thereto, but that the said representations were false and fraudulent, did then and there rescind the said deed and did then and there cause the said purchase price of said interest to-wit: the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars to be tendered back to them, the said defendants, and request that they re-convey the said premises back to the plaintiff Nannie H. Jones then being Nanunie H. Rogers, or that they re-deliver the same as fraudulent and void, and that they yield the posses sion of said interest to the said plaintiff, but the said defendants did not and would not receive said money and would not re convey said premises so fraudulently pro cured from said Nannie H. Jones, back to her the said Nannie H. Jones, nor yield the possession thereof to her the said Nannie HI. Jones. And as to the said fraud so by them the said defendants perpetrated upon the said Nannie I1. Jones, in depressing the market value of the said premises by combination and purchase of bidders, and by fraudulent interference as afore said, and by conspiring as aforesaid to pay the said Granville Stuart the moneys aforesaid, whereby the market value of interests in said premises were fraudu lently depressed, these plaintiffs say the said Nannie H. Jones did not know of, nor ascertain the existence of said fraud ulent aets until April 23, 1879. WHAT 5WAS ASKED FOil. Wherefore the plaintiffs pray judg mnent: First: 'Tihat the said deed from the said Nannie II. Jones by her then name of Nannie II. Rogers c·onveying her in terest in said premises to said William A. Clark and Samuel E. Larabie, and oh tained by fraud, he decreed to be null and void, and that her said dower inter est in the said premises he decreed to her, being the one-third thereof, and that she he let unto possession thereof. Second: That an accounting he had of the ores and precious metals extracted from said premises, and that said defend ants he decreed to pay to these plaintiffs their proper share thereof. Third: That pending this action a re ceiver be appointed to take charge of the said premises and to have and hold the plaintiffs' share of the proceeds. Fourth: That the plaintiffs have such other and furtherrelief as may be agree able to equity, and a judgment for their I ost,. SSIgnedj E. W. & J. K. TooL.E. SANDEItS & C(:i.IEN, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. 'IThe plaintiffs, Nannie H. Jones and Richard S. Jones, beinelug duly sworn, each for himself and not one for the other, on their several and corporal oaths, do depose and say that the facts stated in I tih foregoing complaint are true of the 1 plaintiffs' own knowledge, except those therein stated on information and belief, and as to tlhose facts they believe them tI blhe true, and further say not. r I Signed1 NASNSi: Ii. J.ONES. ISignedl RI'IIAII S. JONES. ,Subscribed in my presence by Richard S: ..los 'and Nannie H. .Jones, and sworn to ho them thefore me this 26ith day of April. I18T. INotarial Seal.j Is..tt I. Lewis, Notary Puliic, Montana. 1:nd,1orsd: Filed April 28, 1879, S tim, . I.nvis, II, Clerk, Milline.ry, Mhillinery! I- 'liTe tlargest aild most complete stock in 1 the city. Hats made to order on short Si potice tiii Xe York 0Cbah lsaar. - 2 -iJ MILWAUKEE I E, 3 = L$.OO A DAY I- z FIRST-CLASS IN EVERY RESPECT. MATTHES & ROEHL, Proprietors. GRE.IT FJLLS, - - .MONTA,/IKJ. 8. c. ASIBY. C. A. BROADWATER. S. C. ASHBY & CO, if Helena and Great Falls. E McCormick Mowers and Binders. ; THOIAT HAY RAKES. ad se Minnesota Chief Threshers, Binding Twine, "Mitchell" Faian and Spring Wag en. Fine Carrlagee, Buggies, Phaeton, Buckboards T Road Carts, ETc., Etc. Harness, Barb Wire, t Virtor Feed Mill. rd Wall Tents, WagOn COvers, Etc., Etc. Extras for Farm Machinery. J James Brown's Restaurant anld Boarding-House. in A Good Meal for 25& Cents. Third St. between Centra' Ave. and Fi Slt Ave. South. Oreat Falls, M. T. ur AA 0 00 0 -a CID~ r. w md ccc