Show i SAEAES SUIT The Allegations M Williams Mr Edward Austin Against M dwad Austi The complaint in the case of Sarah J Williams vs Edward Austin was filed with the clerk of the District Court yesterday yes-terday morning but service was not made on the defendant till late in the afternoon In brief she complains as follows That she first became acquainted with said defendant and his wife on shipboard I while returning from Europe in 1880 and that Austin was then coming to Salt Lake City to manage the London Bank of Utah an institution carriek on by English Eng-lish capitalists Letters followed the acquaintance by which plaintiff was led t believe that Salt Lake City and vicinity afforded favorable fav-orable opportunities for the investment of money on loans at high rates of interest Relying upon the pretended friendship of Jhe defendant and confiding in his honesty hon-esty candor and judgment in business affairs she did between the 18th day of fay 1881 and the llth day of February 1883 remit and entrust to the said defendant de-fendant to be by him loaned upon mortgage mort-gage security in the said Territory for her use and benefit divers sums of money amounting in the aggregate to more than 17000 There was afterwards considerable sums of interest which had accumulated upon the aforesaid moneys and belonging to the plaintiff also dividends divi-dends upon stocks owned by and purchased chased for her by the said defendant with her money which interest and dividends were collected by the defendant and by the plaintiff also entrusted to him for investment in loans as aforesaid defendant de-fendant vas her confidential agent she only gave general directions Further that the defendant made loans at remunerative rates and transmitted frequent and satisfactory statements of the account between himself and the plaintiff On the 18th day of April the defendant sent the plaintiff his own note for 2500 bearing interest at 10 per cent per annum payable one year from its date accompanied by 100 shares of stock in the London Bank of Utah limited as security Another loan to himseW was made of 1900 secured by stock of the Mammoth Mining Company Representations as to the value of said stoct were false and fraudulent In April 1884 defendant requested re-quested plaintiff to return the two notes and securitiy promising to replace them by mortgages on city property in her favor Plaintiff i did Mrv nn id s nf 1 f avor Plaintf so accidentally retaining re-taining 1750 shares of Mammoth but defendant de-fendant returned no equivalent Plaintiff further alleges that defendant professed to have loaned 150745 to W H Bowers for which he had a note and 1528 shares of Mammoth stock said to be worth 4000 That in makins said loan to said Bowersif in fact it was made and in taking the said security the said defendant was grossly improvident improvi-dent careless and negligent that said note has not been paid and there is now accrued and unpaid thereon a large amount of interest amounting to two hundred dollars or more I the loan was made it was made for Austins personal per-sonal advantage under the following circumstances That Bowers and Austin Aus-tin were interested in the Mammoth stockjobbing affair and for that sole reason Austin made the loan and plaintiff plain-tiff further upon her information and belief alleges that the said defeudant never would independent of the said relations existing between himself and Bowers have made the said loan upon the said security That under the management of Bowers and H A Munro ButlerJohnstone said Mammoth Mine was worked without profitableresults but that defendant in a letter dated January 1883 falsely gave a glowing account of the richness of said Mammoth Mine its extensive refining works and smelting furnaces and representing repre-senting that it was going to pay splendidly splen-didly that they were then turning out 50000 a month He further represented that he had himself taken 2500 shares as a speculation and gave a picture in the most gorgeous coloring of the certainty of making large profits by investing in the stock of said company com-pany adding with insignificant and impressive im-pressive emphasis that the company did its business with himmeaning as manager man-ager of the said London bankand that he knew just what was being done that there were then but a few thousand out of 400000 shares for sale at 250 per share which would be the lowest they would be sold for and concluding with an invitation to plaintiff to let him know at once i she thought well of it Also that the superintendent of the Ontario Onta-rio had purchased stock that on these representations she sanctioned the purchase pur-chase of 1500 shares paying for them 3750 Plaintiff alleges that defendant did not purchase the shares but transferred trans-ferred to her stock of his own which he had secured for a nominal amount And plaintiff further alleges on her information and belief that the said stock had not at the said time any market value that there was not then and had not been for along time prior thereto any dealing in said stock save among a very II limited number of persons almost if not quite all of whom were interested in con nuction with the said Bowers Butler Johnston and the defendant in said con I iract to purchase a control of said stock Upon becoming advised of the actual facts in regard to the value of said stock and of the fraud deceit and falsehood that had been practiced upon her and resorted to by the said defendant in sell ing the same to her she did heretofore towit on the 13th day of March 1885 tender the said 1500 shares of stock back to him and demanded of him the said sum of 3750 paid therefor together with the interest thereon from the time of such payment but the said defendant refused to accept the said stock or to refund the said money The prayer of the complainant asks for f I I a judgment j and degree for a little over 8000 Williams Young are counsel for the plaintiff |