Newspaper Page Text
R. C. DUNN, Publisher. Terms $1.00 per Tear CITIZENS STATE BANK. (INOOBPOBATED) OF PRINCETON, niNNESOTA. Paid Up Capital Surplus, Railroad Lands W. P. CHASE, flanager. %3 Fine Hardwood Lands, Meadows and Open Lands, at ^9 fm Low Prices and on Easy Terms, for sale by The Great Northern and 47 St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Companies. For Maps, Prices, and any other information, write to M. S. RUTHERFORD, Land Agent. Princeton, Minn. Foley Bean Lumber Company Manufacturers and Wholesale Dealers in White Pine Lumber, Lath and Shingles. Also Sash, Doors, Mouldings and a Com* plete Stock of Building Material. COMMERCIAL HOTEL, BURRELL & CAMPBELL, Proprietors, Princeton, Minnesota. $30,OOQ 5oo A General Banking Business Transacted Loans Made on Approved Se curity Interest Paid on Time De posits Foreign and Domestic Ex change S. S. PETTERSON, Pres. T. H. CALEY, Vice Pres. Q. A. EATON, Cashier. BANE O PRINCETON. -3^ J. J. SKAHEN, Cashier and Manager. ?$- I Does a General Banking Business. jjr Collecting and Insurance. Farm and Villag Loans ...few i^cms.. PRINCETON. HISTORY OF A DEED. Lost Deed in Connection With the Cook-Remer-Zins Land Case Tried Last Week. Echoes of Last Week's Court Pro- ceedingsCriminal Cases to 4 Come Up To-Day. Court continued to 'grind slowly but urely the last half of last week. On Thursday three jury cases were dis posed of ana' in the evening Judge Searle listened, to the attorneys in the famous land case of Cook vs. Frank Zins and E. N. Remer. The hearing was resumed on the case Friday morn ing and the evidence was not all sub mitted until noon. \In the afternoon the case of Adcock vs. Rush was heard by the court and it was four o'clock when the evidence was in and the argu ments had been made. Court adjourned to Saturday morning when the jury was excused until ^Thursday morning of this week at nine o'clock, at which time the court will take up the crimi nal calendar and proceed to dispose of it. In the case of Larson vs. Winter the jury brought in a verdict for the de fendant. Peter Larson, who lives up on the Mike Drew brook, brought ac tion against Harrison T. Winter of the old Mike Drew place for damages from fires. Larson as plaintiff represented also claims of a similar nature of two parties in his vicinity named Berg and Johnson. The jury did not see any cause for damages. The next case of John Tritche and Eldert Edmison against Delos N. Hunt, was an appeal from justice court by Hunt. The action was for stumpage claim, appellant holding some hay that plaintiffs had on the land, the amount in controversy being very small. The jury found a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of $17 50. The jury had the case for several hours, and went to supper late in the evening and after returning agreed on a verdict. The case of Delos N. Hunt vs. An drew Rust was for payment of a note that plaintiff claimed was one of sev eratthat defendant gave to the father of plaintiff some time ago in a certain land deal which was afterwards can celled and the notes given by Rust had all been returned excepting one which in the course of some business trans actions had been given to plaintiff by hi& father who afterwards died. The jury found a verdict for defendant. James Holland who was indicted by the grand jury for having sold a team of horses that it wasMJharged did not belong to him, was given a trial last Thursday, and after the evidence was in the judge took the case from the jury and told Holland he was dis charged, and to go his way, but called him back long enough to remind him in the future not to have anything more to do with horse deals. It seems that the evidence against Holland was of a very flimsy nature and the circum stances surrounding the qase were of such a nature that the court got dis gusted with the whole affair. A party named Nelson from Milaca it seems some time in the past had been given a team by some other party to work and when winter came on the team which was in poor condition was placed in charge of Holland, and Nelson at the time told Holland he had better shoot one of the horses which was a good candidate for the bone yard, and it seems he did not care what he did with the other horse. Holland after keeping the team some time, sold the horses for $60. The sale evidently was such a good one that Nelson thought Holland had better be reported to the grand jury, and that body considered the transaction of sufficient gravity to return an indictment. The judge was not of the opinion that a man should be sent to the penitentiary for selling an old horse that from a humane stand point ought to be shot and thus re warded for past services. With the promise on the part of the attorneys interested in the case that it would not take over half an hour the court took up immediately after sup per Thursday the Cook-Zins-Remer land case which was continued from the September term. The case is one that involves title to 960 acres of land located near Bridgman and there is more or less mystery to the whole affair. Samuel M. Cook, a single man who resided in Massachusetts secured from one Valentine in 1894 a large tract of land located in the vicinity of Bridgman. The late Coleman M. Bridgman was his attorney in fact and had the handling and sale of the lands in question. This power of attorney was given Bridgman in 1888, several years before the sale of the lands in dispute. It is claimed that on May CET0N,MILLE LACS COUNTY, MINNESOTA, THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1902. 9th^1900 Bridgman^ as attorney for Cooky deeded to E. N. Remer 960 acres of the Valentine land, and from the records and^the evidence it appears that Remer deeded to Frank Zins of St. Cloud 880 acres of this land, and there by hangs a tale. Bridgman died in^November of the year 1900 and soon after Cook died. The case against de fendants was started by J. O. Mills who is executor of the estate and* is acting for the heirs. The deed from Cook to Remer has mysteriously dis appeared some manner and the rec ords of the Register of' deed's office were brought into court and offered as evidence to show the transaction. Page 512 of the books of deeds was offered in evidence by attorneys for Remer and Zins, and Register of Deeds Chapman and his deputy, Richard Chapman were put on the stand and stated that the record was what it pur ported to be on its face. The register of deeds had stated- that he" always compared all documents after they had been recorded in his office. He was unable to swear to having verified the Cook-Remer deed in any manner that would enable him to state specifically that he personally knew the record in his office to be an absolutely correct copy. The testimony of his deputy was substantially the same, the instru ment taking its course along with all the other instruments filed. There Was considerable technical sparring by the attorneys for ground on which to stand. The judge failed to see how the records as testified to would afford any tangible proof of the validity of the original document, but he finally allowed the record to be admitted in evidence for what it was worth, stating that it was not worth much. The testimonj' of Attorney Kent of Milaca and Remer was to the effect that Remer and Bridgman were /in Kent's office in Milaca one day quite a while prior to the consummation of the transaction in question, and that they had with them a map of the lands that are said to have been conveyed by Bridgman to Remer. Kent was in structed to_ make out the body of the deed, filling in the numerous descrip tions* Kent testified that he did so, and the deed was given to Bridgman. This was the last Kent saw of the deed, untU |fr was-*sent to Mm ron*. Grand Rapids by Remer. Mr. Kent did not remember what kind of a blank he used, and on being asked by Attorney Taylor ]f the covenant section in the deed was the same as that in the rec ord that was offered in evidence, Kent said he did not know E N Remer testified to having gone to St. Cloud where he met his brother by appointment who loaned him $800 and with enough cash to make $1,200 went in company with John Williams to the home of Bridgman and paid the latter the money and got the deed to the property in question. Mr. Will iams testified to having gone with Remer to the home of Bridgman and he saw the two men sit down to a table and count over the money, Remer re ceiving the deed and leaving shortly thereafter with Williams who stated that Remer showed him the deed in a general way and remarked in a self satisfying way of the deal. Remer testified that he sent the deed to his brother in Minneapolis who kept it for some time. In course of time Re mer found Zins who loaned him $600 to pay taxes on the land. Remer in the course of the transactions gave Zins the deed to 880 acres spoken of. In the meantime Remer went to Grand Rapids, Minn., and took the deeds and check along with him. He sent them to Attorney Kent of Milaca with in structions to have him go to Princeton and pay the taxes on the land. In company with Zins Kent came to Princeton in March, 1901 and had the deeds recorded. Kent in his testimony stated that he mailed the Cook-Remer deed back to Remer at Grand Rapids, and that is the last ever seen of the mysterious document which Judge Searle inquired for early in the hear ing, and was informed by Mr. Taylor that they had made ropeated requests from defendants for the deed, but that same could not be produced, and the testimony of Remer and Kent was offered to show that the missing deed was no longer in existence. Mr. Locke, a notary and attorney of St. Cloud, testified to the fact that Mr. Bridgman came to Locke's office and signed the deed to Remer. Locke signed the deed as a witness, but said he did not think that any one else signed as a witness at the time. He did not look at the deed very close, only to know that it conveyed certain land situate in Mille Lacs county. County Commissioner Deans was put on the stand and said that Remer came to him in December, 1900 and stated that he (Remer) had a chance to get hold of some lands up near Bridgman and asked Deans if he did not want to put $1,000 into the deal and make a fejL thousand dollars. Deans said,he thought the matter looked tempting but was not satisfied with the appear ance of the transaction. He said that Remer told him he (Remer) had loaned Bridgman money, and that he also had to pay Stewart the sum of $960, or one dollar an acre to settle a lis pendens against the land. County Commis sioner Libby was also examined as to a similar proposition from Remer, though Mr. Libby's testimony was not specific enough to be of any consequence, and so far as the court was concerned it was of the opinion that all this testi mony was worth little or nothing, but the judge suffered it all to go in. Land Agent Erickson of Milaca was put on the stand to testify as to certain land contracts made for portions of the land that Remer claimed to have bought from Bridgman, and the evidence showed how Remer hurried over from St. Cloud and informed Erickson that Bridgman had died, and how Erickson had hastened over to St. Cloud, when informed of the death of Bridgman, the testimony indicating that the par ties to the transaction were much ex ercised over the demise of Bridgman, and that there was a mixup of some kind in land transactions involving the lands described in the lost Cook-Remer deed. It was noon when the evidence was all in and a lot that the court didn't care a continental for. The at torneys, evidently out of consideration for the court who had been waiting patiently for the half-hour's hearing to close, submitted the case without final arguments. The judge will not render his opinion in the matter right away. The case is a most important one and will eventually be carried to the supreme court. It is said that the lands involved in the deal are worth $15,000 at the present time, and Mr. Deans testified that the lands at the time of the transaction had a reasonable cash value of $8 to $9 per acre. They went to Remer in a single transaction for the small sum of $1,200 but Remer claimed that he had a lot of extra expense in the way of claims against the land. Some of the evidence that was-intro duced and which was really not ger mane to the point involved, was of a l^raeteV larattempV to'' lnapeach~4fce testimony of Remer, and as Attorney Sullivan remarked the plaintiff's at torneys desired to have it appear that the Cook-Remer deed was a forgery, and involved some very questionable methods. When the testimony was in troduced that went to show that Remer had after Bridgman was dead made propositions to several parties to take an interest in the Bridgman lands Remer was put back on the stand and stated that his overtures to ceitam parties were concerning other Cook lands than the ones involving in the missing deed, and Remer remarked that he was after all the lands held by Bridgman and would have secured them had Bridgman lived another month. Taylor" & Jenks of St. Cloud and Chas. Keith of Princeton repre sented the plaintiff, while J. D. Sulli van of St. Cloud was attorney for Zins and Stewart & Brower of St. Cloud for Remer. After dinner Friday Judge Searle listened to the testimony in a counter claim in the case of Adcock vs. Rush. The original case, an action for $2,000 damages, was on the calendar at the September term and by stipulation it was continued to the present term, but shortly before the present term of court opened the defense filed with its answer a counter claim for the sum of $36.50, the amount due Rush from Ad COCK in settlement of the, first year's lease for the Rush ranch. Rush and the lessee have been having a lot of trouble in trying to agree on certain matters relating to the fulfillment of the terms of the lease. In j'ustice court at Milaca last winter Rush got a j'udgment against Adcock for $60, which amount after considerable trou ble was collected from Adcock/ In Justice Chadbourne's court last week, before the hearing in the district court an action for unlawful detainer brought by Rush against Adcock, was heard, taking up two day's time, the case be ing a jury trial. Rush in his complaint stated that defendant owed him the sum of $36.50 as balance on the lease of the ranch for the year ending August 31st, 1901, and also that he had broken the terms of his contract by refusing to perform certain work on the ranch as agreed in the lease. The jury found a verdict for defendant, however. The hearing before Judge Searle practi cally covered the same points and much of the same testimony was gone over. One of the witnesses was Geo. F. Thompson of the Thompson ranch four miles from the Rush ranch. He had accompanied Rush to the ranch on a certain day when Mr. Rush had gone to transact business with Adcock. Mr. Thompson said that he had advised the parties to try and settle their diffi culties out of courts to wh^ce the j'udge remarked "You did well. They should have taken your advise and paid you for your services." The court regretted the fact that such a petty case should be dragged into court and consume the time of lawyers and the court, to which the attorneys, Messrs. Josslyn for the Rush and Westfall for Adcock as sented. Mr. Josslyn remarking that they had come up here to defend an action for $2,000 damages and also col lect a judgment for $60, "and lose a suit for unlawful detainer," replied Attorney Westfall. After this ex change of pleasantries the hearing was resumed. Mr. Thompson was recalled, and desired to free his mind of the whole matter which the court permit ted him to do. He recited some of the troubles between Adcock and Rush and stated bow he had tried to act as-*, peacemaker, but he said that when Ad cock and Rush would meet they would go into the air at once. When the case was finally finished the court took it for consideration with a sigh of re lief. The case of Mary E. Chadbourne against Kate Kenely, et al. was con tinued by consent, and the case of Pe terson vs. the Supervisors of the Town of Princeton will probably be taken up this week. In the friendly suit of Har old Mudgett vs. Miretta M. Mudgett, et als. an order was made confirming the report of the referees and final judg ment for distribution of property. The case of the State vs. Sawyer was dismissed, and that of the State vs. Pelaske was continued on the applica tion of defendant. Court convened this morning at nine o'clock and took up the criminal cases on the calendar. Geo. Howard who was brought into court last Friday on a bench warrant, will be tried for forg ing a chattel mortgage, having been indicted for this offense last Septem ber. Mrs. Mary McDonald will be tried on two indictments, one for keeping a house of ill fame in Prince ton and the other for selling liquor without a license. Josiah Weston of Milaca will be tried on three indict ments for th*e illegal sale of liquor. R. M. Patchen will be tried on two indict ments, and, his bar-tender on one in dictment for~the same offense. John Thornquist will stand trial on two in dictments for selling liquor to minors. The first case called this morning was the State against Mrs. Mary Mc Donald who was charged with having sold liquor to one Knute Mattson liv ing in Maple Ridge A jury as far re moved from urban life as possible was secured and the case commenced. Mattson was called and approached the witness stand like one going to his doom. He admitted having been in a house somewhere in Princeton and was invited to buy some beer for the girls and spent some money upon solic itation to do so. He lost a saw-buck or so at the house at which he re mained all night and felt aggrieved to think the charges for a touch of high life were so exhorbitant. But he could not identify the defendant who was sitting beside her attorneys, Messrs. Dickey and Ives, nor could he locate the house, but he thought he might be able to go to it if given an opportunity. The judge asked the county attorney if this was all the evidence he had and being told that it was the court dis missed the jury as there was no evi dence to convict defendant on the charge for which she was indicted. The next case called was the State against Patchin and Doyle Judge Searle says that the cases will all be tried to-day and this evening, and if they all last as long as the first there will be poor prospects for a night ses sion. Decision on a Sanimong. The supreme court has sustained the ruling made by Judge Baxter last Sep tember in the case of the Piano Manu facturing Co. and A. H. Steeves against Frank Kaufert. Defendant's attorney moved to set aside the service of the summons because the name of defend ant was omitted from the summons, but Judge Baxter overruled the mo tion. An appeal to the supreme court was made from this order of the lower court and the supreme court finds that the omission is not fatal and the or der appealed from is affirmed. Judge Start who wrote the decision says: An order denying the motion of the defendant, appearing specially for that" purpose, to set aside the service of the summons upon him, is appealable. A summons is not void if it clearly in forms the defendant that it is Intended for him and requires him to answer the complaint of the plaintiff, although it be not formally directed to him. Mrs. Feathers and Chas. Peters of Baroda, Michigan, who have been vis iting Mr. and Mrs. Byers the past two weeks, returned home Monday.