Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-02-10
Copy Of statement furnished Mr.. Philip NJ. Tabb sr
agTeeahlY 10 his rcnnest

Copy Of 4 statement furnished Mr. Philip NJ Tabb sr
agreeably To his request
havlng been requested by Mr.. Philip NJ Takb
ST, 70 specify what particulars in Mr.. Goodies re-
cent publication were confirmed by my recolectios
| would say, those occurrences which are stared 80
have taken place in MIR Goodies Office and in Com,
10 my knowledge, Mr.. Goode has fallen into but
one inaccuracy, and that trivial and of no material
import. lie states, that "soon after got to Contt
Mr.. Iabb came in, &c" MIR. Goode is entirely
correct IN saying that, IN obedience to a MESSAGE
from the Judge, he left his Office while Mr. Tabb
ana myself remained; but owing, probably, to
some detention IN the street, he did not (as he sun
posedl reach the Court room before Mr. Tabb and
myself, but few moments after our arrival
would add that, while in Court my nttep,ion =,
me moment being otherwise engaged, / did not hear
the waiver of notice by Mr.. Goode but the 70
cords OF the Court will believe, shew such ,yaiy, r
to have been made. did not understand from Mr.
Goodies publication, that the remark in REGARD 10
Tue course which he tMr. GOOdel should feel bound
10 pursue, was addressed to any other than Nj
laoh himself, or that 1t had been made in NV hear
ing; Inc substance OF It was certainly conveyed
10 MI Iabb, IN the message subsequently deliver
ed by myself at Mr.. Goodies request
Al the Ike instance OF Mr. Tabb | would state
what further conversation besides that stated in Nj
Goodies publication, according to my recollection
occurred IN the interview between Mr. Tnbb and
Mr. Goode at his office. After MIR Goode had ex
pressed TO Mr. Tabb the opinion that il he had made
u transfer OF MS commissions or interests of INV
sort since the judgment and execution in this case
tnat u would be question Of law between the as .
Sisnee and the judgment creditor, MIR Tabb remark
ed thatthe transfer had been made 10 his SON in n
ucipaton OF this thing, some time ago, before the
judgment was obtained, and that why could he not
make transfer Of his business as well rs a ner-
chant, orany other personl To this MIR Goode re-
ped mat the records did no, show any such ;rans-
Ter, nor hac any notice thereof been given: and he
Sues lhal part OF the work must have been done
ana portion OF the commissions earned, before the
transfer had been made, and that such portion could
not be transferred to the prejudice Of CREDITOR
Mr laoo answered, that perhaps Mr. Goode did not
understand his MIR Tabb'sl business; that he did
not consider any portion Of the commissions for
having taken bonds, and such like services, due
until the money was collected. Mr. Goode renlied
That was question Of law, which the Court mus,
decide and that he did not think the autborit;ss
would sustain Mr. Tabs views. The suggestion
aoout giving UP memorandum, sc. &c, was then
made by Mr. Goode, rs stated by himself The
conversation as herein detailed, together with that
slated 10y Mr. Goode, was, so far as recollect, ali
mat TOOK place at the interview referred TO.
le5 u Il. b. JONES.