, 1865-11-29

! charge h1ud- II tlsa changes r1adr-snd fhsT hs111
soss;,osea % % e ssst.,n sasa By their .,Eausnts-
man to tha Peniten1Aly, md damn bin forever ID
IMi1 now ez1a1ioe into The eon,lderaHous that
complainant endezyoss>to haze set sstda. TneTn
are four corsdefatfons n reeited IN the a9rset1:
MaI:t A. ~ he pestneship Il 70 expire bJ u@ttatsoa On
are On hand, according to invoice taken i'm 3.
t161, 50 Of neschandIse; or that anaount In I
Ten Witnesses, about 70 or IS pa Cent tit @nst
he disgosed Of y The firm Is 70 eesse IN len days
a, thtsl, W%sdswor.a % has largely o7e1dtawn his &c.
amount Of eash relatively TO bis partners; fourthiy
The firm have given their notes 70 Wadsvor1h Ia
siaeW: Cooley and Fsrweil sssune the collection
ofthsm; The goods - to Be charged 10 hem III 1t
lnsoioe price As Of Jan. 2, 1864; Wadswo,th
releases and 1anssers h1s nshi therein. And It "a
nom The asaets Of The firms Of Cooley, FslweIl i
Co.. md Cooley, WadsworIh Co. until The copart-
netshlp debts Of Cooley, FaFwen 4 Co are paid,
to each. A0o
partners, win state the principle Of law which nv
learned friends on the other side seem to Wish 70
Iely FEY upon; That when one partner having pecu-
Aas means OF knowledge. makes b1GEatu With a
eopartner naniiestly Tor the benefit q he fo,mer
and 70 the detament of the latter, tho oans l. On
peculiar knowledge 10 he Mt,er" q Simmons, a u q
~; Wallace, P. 7o) Ny answer i, dlst Farwse4u
md Cooley bad no peculiar means Of Rnowiedce;
eiy ea q 9Ss ss 6e 6an'' y cos2 e Ss .ad ,
FsIWeu. II was uncertain at the time who
W9sa Wsasxo! sain ne No oods !Gss .y would ss0s
eoua Seen sold n1se ss e an, es! stss!
Ea5iss, r. Il We may aelisrs oil TIE witnesses exam.
been Hueh smaller 50 better eale Of si he rooas oods
pcr added a. NJ naon ses q W1s Was 1Se aS
case II any loes was made on the goods, Cooley
that NJ los could 1 Waassofh r" 4ass se4 ss.a
mens provides snat The profits shall he determined
III Ga 0ss %5s hs s5ans
made IN he collection ,he asaes arc to oe chang
nets according to the bssis laid down ia the
articles OF partnership. Thus, Wadsworth could
anf'sr % no indus proportion Of loss, no noFe than
tion, nc have the evidence Of t6e books showing
mat inst before Cooley and Farnel gave notice to
WadsSolsh that the liabilities Of the old finn Heu
Ill paid. and That they were ready TO divide the ru-
naming assets. they charged up Has, ll9 to profit
anu lofs account, thereby reducing the remaining
ases to What thsE eoRs!dered theit eash Valae
and Farwell at q per cent below par, The average
0zas p1se3 on ea ,hsn BY the "aesse he
| cajper 10 that amount s@"'Ss~'' VI 20 .
when no u,an ia iefSauae1 The I n.E t1hl .sana
INTO this court with hi. pocket-book IN his pocket
not b beevsd, il ha pocket.book i sill foaad IL
Wad:xob bas ros al hs as5eia ei n he one; NJ
sefnoss 81 be has Persla;sny and repeatedly refused
he had Iittie noton III ihe t19a sG.; l1etaaps
his hcad that FarseIi Tonia md rnn5 .,iae, fa
oid assets better and faster than be could. The
and Fare tdt mnrc sssefs ~ Mas naa ia4i iq coasy
took eFs Of anothes e9e nd
A. ibe einss o1 H. ,ne gooas on ne oasis Or nrodts
q ~. 1s me next ground Of complalnt which
VA 5ms ~. 1ne equst VIII near IN mind has tho
Il. ~ ~ " tals mannss q diyiaon a.
,a,,s ~ ana rs manner adopted bI tue COM
.nat o. alNalng In a9e proportion Of capital
sns..s n N sinpiy 9ne or interest anonnhn.- to
f .res ~ ~ dnIsa n tae easiy part o. my argument
- aAee 10 ute!eHce IN the principal. a. whatever
one palnef y minus ~ one nr1n. he Is plus In the
t,e nthe1 ana ffe stysa VII answer this charge in
shown BY the entries on the books, the entries On
.nMments rendered BY Letter. as gyyprn 10 by him
70 Wadswor,h, exhibit A, and the Endorsements on
ihat The complainant should be so bind and self
pre51dsceId ~ y 70 pretend Ignorance Of such het.
A. pEesented here BY Wadsyofth a. one OF the ,asn
represent auous made by Cooley and FarzelL prove /
that he must have bad tali inowiedae oiand agreed
he ro1.
Wcaswcrth i Co, AMOUNTING to oDeiouttb az
$113.5l9 g., a work which SOME or The w1inesses
cisnt consideration 10 WadsworthI s1A1'
The counsel for The comnIainaut eay thai Fmvr11
committed naud on Wadsworth in ehar-Iug inte-
well 4 Co.; md as charging iutere. Il Is ths oniy
way In wh.ch dcdcIts Of capital can be- eouaIizeI
il he sum Of SscU 10 ths eaplfs s.osk. zs ths
clause. "to be paid In IS last a. COLLECTED rom the
aseeis ol Cooley, Wadsworth & Co "lImits the copo
ital TO tbs astcis 10 collected. The books showed
articles II they contain an ambiguity
shows charge, 5os interest Oh a1ot., oi xl4uJ.
could not be short stock Us be had subscribed no
definite s.,n7 such had been the understandingi
Would not man, on whom demand Tor interest
on hts note, who had no note OUT eay that he couid
owe no Interest, as be had given no noel Did |
Nadswoyh make any such objectionf lie tells "a |
that be Always ,Ss bad lull eonads1ee in Fare unt
Faf'elrs proportion to divide The remaining as
sesf, the very thing they had all agreed 10 do
nse Woud be MT have Is,
short ttock, when he had made no ncreement TO pay
n my specified sum Other than the assets OF the old
L IT, f.: :. nn, ona .,v ~ ,c.onn, ,,u ~.
y p1t QUE Way 10 account Iof INC prosecu-
,on ., ans g. ease ; 0y men oi sueh aby nnd good
a. ~ ss sounsei az on me o1het side and
~. y, at lucy ~, dno oase Always oceu, blinded
" Hte{a4ieT. 5na lntetest o. tne counsel who
n,u T k M " iats sass rom NE
bos tsi o', cansaa h,I " u,s M
wrong iishf stssns on % The @ nssnar, 1s M ss psopos
r h.N at sr i nao loSs Mtge sam ol money
m In as u N tn w.. d.ya h pI1 ,sts ous e.
hey pick Al Ill ,he iittie ir1seaia,iues IL FL boop
yesfr, md bud thereon T snpeasgsls n en II
brilliant appearance. But il viii % Dol stand ibey
viii not close my aspau,eo, w,..out audtnv tn
he refusal Of W2dsworth 10 deliver statcments
yho buns, or teas I'D his pspess tos here We bava
:2h,bls A, nicely and carefully preserved; We
t5.s En- rS5ds 5 and one rendered
blink Tint paper or statement may bo nssfaL II ts
eklly forthcoming, but when It Ii TO tell aoatnst
nm, t 10 nor to b found. What conduct for q
nan who charges fraud on another. Exhibit A !
!ays the atforney on ihe other side, n the very |
saud pelpettateu on my clieu:; It does not show
5ue statement Of his aceoqnt II only shows I,
eltet gave yon The statements Of your accounts IN
be fsm Of Cooley, Waasworth i Co., and Cooley,
strwell Co., together; produce them. We a:e
N additional proof Of the fafsty OF their case !
IN order to make out his case, Wadsworth has 70
,et ASIDE al agreements usds with his partners,
agreements Of which the books and all statements |
5iven him have been evidence for years. lie seems
ooseested with mania to set aside ali agreements
It wns not ny inlentipn to reiuts the mass Of ar
,u1nsnts On details made by The brilliant and ta-
enled gentleman yesterday. His whole agument
y neWered by pointing to the general Fesume. |
.howiug differences On p. III Of The record, show
ne that the total difference Is one or 3G54 16 inst
apsets entirely bis theory Of the immense losses !
sustained By Wadsworth and fInmeuso rains bv
Faryyell, which be figured up through his whole !
speeeh. Why, cir, II the calculations md acures |
presented yesterday were corrsct th.f
nan Farwell would NOT be- fo,e,etea
pne moment among honest men. the |
oeniientiury Wonld he "a, cood Tor him h. rouIS
only get hIs dcseyts by roinr down preat tIesI
xhfch he dweit Win nernfnr enarbsi sptseus S W
esrlt Of which he looked with bnnest horror .Ws !