Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1869-10-22

a verdict, and Immediately indiot me for
felony, for appropriating the shares TO my
own use, authorizing their registration IN
my own name.
He submitted that ii had bought the
shares, was liable as contributorY; and
ii not, as felon. The learned Judge said
he could not entertain the issue of felony,
as that was y question for distinct tri-
bunal, but that he was inclined TO rule
that hid bought the shares The condi-
tions of sale were sufficiently explicit to
his mind on that point-'"thc lots to be
cleared with all faults and errors of de-
sCription," Indeed, the very term em-
ployed by auction custom appeared deci-
sive. The item in question was described
as Lot 211-an iron safe" 1t was the
'lot which was put up to composition,
and to use n common expression, Du.
Trumway had bought "the lot Otn--that was
"all the lot"i The question then arose
Could ! be held liable as a Contributory,
when in fact, l had purchased the shares
on the very day ofthe company's bank.
ruptcy and the registry, In my
name was not completed until somo
weeks laterg In other words, that
seeing the company had contracted
no liabilities during the time l held the
shares (having, in fact, ceased business)
could j be made q contributoryp Against
this Il was urged that shares represented
past Responsibilities and that as should
have been entitled to- share In a dividend
on the past year chad one been declared),
so il was Just that should bear my pro-
portion of the burdens Andsgain ; y was
clear that somebody must be liable as a
contrlbutory in respect of these fifty shares
for twelve months prior to the bankrupt
cy, and the burden of proof as to the per-
son so liable if not myself must be sup
posed to rest with their present possessor
The Judge thought not, rs it was not to be
contendcd l could have had either interest
or liability in the company before the date
of the sale. The case, however, was com.
plicated still further blythe opposing coun-
sci bringing evidence as to the previous
owner of the iron safe, and endeavoring
to prove that his liability in respect of the
shares actually terminated twelve months
previous to my purchase, SO as to, fix me
with responsibility for the interim. 1t
appeared that the safe and Its contents,
some eighteen months back, had belonged
to Mr.. Wendle, a shareholder in the com
pany; that, in addition to the certificates,
it had contained his cash box and aquanti-
ty of gold and notes, and that the safe had
been stolen from his office, the notes and
gold, and cash-boX removed by the rob
bers, who had obtained wax impression
| of his key, and the valueless safe contain
ing the shares, sold to an irOnmonger,
who put il into the sale. This Mr.. Wendlc
had applied for duplicates of the share
certificates, which were refused by the
company until he could prove the destruc-
tion of the old ones. Unsuccessful in
this, and distressing the reckless business
of the "Undeniable and Unlimited" he ut
last applied to have the shares standing in
his name Cancelled, tetich had been do1ie. 1t
would therefore follow, it was contended,
that my liability embraced the whole
twelvemonth, from the time Mr.. Wendle's
name had been erased, TO the stoppage of
the company, being the next registered
proprietor. Against this it was argued
that whichever Mr.. Wendle might have
written to the company, the certificates,
SOten found, were MS property; and that
after they were stolen, they none the less
ceased to be his property. And If so my
counsel proceeded, there would be a very
remarkable point for the decision of his
! ludship. For he went on to elicit that Mr.
Wendle, after losing nearly the whde OF
his money, had committed suicide under
such determined circumstances, that even
the charity of coroner's jury had been
constrained to pronounce it teLo de sc, and
| he had been buried without funeral rites
| Wherefore, as the certificates of which he
had been robbed were still his property in
the eye of the law, it would follow, from
his being a fel0de Sc, that they became the
property of the crown, consequent on his
act. But if they were thefprOpertyof the
crown, the crown was liable for that
twelve months and again, the safe could
not be legally sold without authority from
the crown and his client could not be the
legal buyer, nor, consequently, have any
right, title, or liability in the shares atore-
said. ~ tS @ p T-Ewy~ra
In addition to all this AButno,; i will
spare the reader the future particulars OF
this involved case Suffice it to say that
it was decided in my faYori but it was
carried to higher court, where was re-
Quired to show cause why the verdict was
not set aside and entered for the plaintiff,
on the ground of the decision being con-
trary to evidence There it was all gone
over again, with the addition that the
original thieves were produced, one OF
them no other than my burglars friend
Toney (and was threatened with an ac-
tion by the maker of the safe for stating
that Toney broke open the "Unimpeacha
blen in five minutes in my outhouse). Here
the decision went against me. Finally
the case came before the bench of Judges
where majority9f one reversed the rul
ing of the lower court. y N tl'/ .
X / wastherefore at last so far succdssfu
in the issue as to find myself in the Bank
ruptcy Court, on account of the legal ex
penses my precious trial had accumulated
The one satisfaction attending this result
was, that l must inevitably have gon,
there had lost.
A q The very csight gofa salezcatal6gue il
now sufficient to produce from Mrs. II. (
sniff off about the capacity of three-vol
ume novel; Chambers Journal. ,.,.pI