Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1839-12-14

lnd appointed two commissioners under y
whose direction, management aud super Z
vision The business should be closed; and
dat w. r.. Bfalton and hitpsell were in j
The FIRST instance, appointed 10 close the,
business; but that subsequently,. the com,
thought il best;lor'hinls Fisher, i
alone to iaanage the business. & 4
ifsNir. Eisher had read fllp decision ON
the referees, ,or II he had rcqlly wished 70
sivcFa statement. Of iacts, be would have
said thatthe re;erces advisedap iulncdiatc
dissolution oGthe aildifs, and suggested the !
propric,y Of having The business closed Ny I
the Undersigned and himself; and after
'wardsycjyised The appointment Of MessIs.
sBrownsund Banghn AS sarhpttefs Or refer
eos tos operinlcnd and lcany dillcrencea
fofopinion between tile parties, MI
My brother, chm w. sBratton, whowas
9in,decliiiings health, had iorsarions causes
lost confidence In the moral honesty and
Iintcgsi;y ol Fisher, and having in equal
interest, in The rneatis &c Inc firm, audi
equally liable Inr nieir debts, II as unwil-
ling to eutrust Fisher with the exclusive
managemcnt,and TWAS Tie express uns
dersiaudiqg, not only 81 the. referees, bat.
of tie Commissioners. Notwithstanding
Their one-sided statements,) that myself
and Fisher in conjunction, were q close
The business, and not Fislicr alone, for The
above reason.
n Shorllyaukcr- MY brother left, myself
and Fisher entered upon he disrhargs Of
1ionr respective duiies The stock of goods
Ion hand were invdisod, and upon cousultas
-ftion wish.the commissioners, inasmuch as
il,he goods were, bound by an execution for
\ an indiyiduai debt Of iishci's, we conclud-
Led 10 lei Fisher have tho stock ,Sas. hcssaid
.lby means Of Tic purchase no would Be
enabled ~ pay tlic cxecutionnand could
secure ihe payment lor tue stock osi5rat-
.lton u FISHER AT t!lislimo lIesc Import
1ani commissioners took itinio their Leads
at the soggesiian Of Fisher, that my SER
vices in winding up lie unsettled busitess
ll@as no longer necessary, az they and
4 Fisher had full possess ion 81 books, nolcs,
\ accounts and the STOCK, mybrolher absent
land ia 1.-THE last stage Of diseasa, and 4 was
4 pccordmgly dismissed without ccriniony.
I The goods were sold 10 Fisher withinQmi.
Enal securily it is true, but boil, commis.
.tsioners well knew, and weiesadvised BY
tpe at ihe time, that every party to Tie
4 notes wefe.uiteriy insolsent. What could
\ have actuated iliemio pursue this strange
4aud uniasiifable course, cannot imagine,
] reconstructed against this course and up.
pealed to both TO secure the Ultimate pay.
, Emont Of the amoint due for, the goods
(which was large, butcoud obtain no sal.
: Gisfacuon. True, Fisher and they, drew
..lup an agl cement by which il wasstipulat
I led thatihe commissioners could take pos
session Of the stock on HAND, and books, a
Fany lime they regarded the debt unsafe,
i but did they do. il? Does any nan o
! sense in this community regard Rober
l Land james Fisher and Wade II. Turne
oa1as good forstlie sum Of fen thousand dollars
!. liz there is never have seen him. Is j
i not notorious that all are ,insolvent, ane
) thave been SO for montis? ask then
! why these commissioners do moi Take pos
session as they pledged heir words - me-
5 labey wonlddo SO whenever The DEBT wa.
1 unsafe? if, as they have assumed so m0cl
i itoihcnselyes, they are really so!icitous {
5 secure my Interest and the Interest Of tlis
/ creditors Of BrpttoD & FISHER, why have
s lElhey net taken possession Of the stock q
+ lhand, notes. books and accounts? for HE,
!, Imust knew that it's unsafe. IA
ell My individual demands against the fra
i !, are small'indced; but yet, Of no .inconsd
IsIeraBle Importance to me. Fer two aud ;
"a half years, my undivided attention nnt
: energies we're devoted 10 The interest ofiht
4 Firm. A fair compensation was demanded
81 Fisher objected 10 Il; 1 .pppcaled 70 liz
!. commissioners, tliey decided TINT i wa
/ Elishtlilly entitled 10 $3.50 from the firm
: aand such tlirthcr sum as could be ohtpine,
afterwards, and upon implication TO Fishe
he refused 10 pay this Of any porlionsof !,
n Thrust oui as ] have been ia lhis unwar
+ ranlable manner, deprive dofall knowlehg
sr3of, or participation In yeitlelnent Of th
le tbusiness.by Fisher and the Commissioner
s,1fn defiance 81 the agreernentSof dissolution
D. and DESTROYS tiiateyery creditor of BratioI
n g. Fisher should have The full benefit B
ID means, shaving no confidence III the honor
Of honest u or solyeney Of Fisher; no a!terna
n tive is left me than The cotlrce | hay
n. Thought proper 70 pursue, NY name
NJ equally associated with Fisher in The de
cision Of tie, referees under whose drec
n tom dissolution ofttiie CO. PARTNERSHIP