The Plymouth Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1869-1941, 1869-10-21

a verdict, and Immediately indict me for
felony, for appropriating the shares to my
own use authorizing their registration IN
my own name.
He submitted that il I had bought the
shares, was liable cOntributory; and
if not, rs felon. The learned judge said
he could not entertain the issue of felony,
as that was question for a distinct tri-
bunal, but that he was inclined to rule
that l rad bought the shares. The condi-
tions of sale were sufficiently explicit to
his mind on that point" the lots to be
cleared with all faults and errors of de-
scription." Indeed, the very term en-
ployed by auction custom appeared dcci.
sive. The item in question was described
as LOT 217-an iron safe" 1t was the
"lot which was put up to competition,
and to use a common expression, Mr..
Trumway had bought tho JOt - that was
"all the lot" The question then arose
Could be held liable as a contrbutory,
when in fact, l had purchased the shares
on the very day of the company's bank
ruptcy, and the registry in my
name was not completed until some
weeks later? In other words, that
seeing the company had contracted
no liabilities during the time l held the
shares (having, in fact, ceased business),
could | be made a cOntributOry? Against
this it was urged that shares represented
past responsibilities, and that as | should
have been entitled to share in dividend
on the past year chad one been declared),
so it was Just that should bear my pro-
portion of the burdens. And again; it was
clear that somebody must be liable as a
contributOry in respect of these fifty shares
for twelve months prior to the bankrupt
CIV, 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, as it was not to be
contended could have had either interest
or liability in the company before the date
of the sale. The case, however, was COM
plicatcd still further by the opposing coun-
sci bringing evidence as to the previous
owner of the iron safe, and CndeavOring
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, shareholder in the COM
pany; that, in addition to the certificates,
it had contained his cash box and quanti-
ty of gold and notes and that the safe had
been stolen from his office, the notes and
gold, and cash h-box removed by the rob-
bers, who had obtained wax impression
of his kew, and the valueless safe contain
ing the shares, sold to an ironmOnger,
who put il into the SALE This Mr.. Wendle
had applied for duplicates of the share
certificates, which were refused by the
company until he could prove the destruc-
ton of the old ones. Unsuccessful in
this, and distrusting the reckless business
of the Undeniablc and Unlimited, he at
last applied to have the shares standing in
his name cancelled, ,rljctItGd been done 1t
would therefore follow, il was contended,
that my liability embraced the whole
twelvemOnth, from the time Mr. Wcndle's
name had been erased, to the stOppage OF
the company, | being the next registered
proprietor. Against this it was argued
that whatever Mr. Wendle might have
written to the company, the certificates,
aoten fouRd, were his property; and that
after they were stolen, they none the less
ceased to be his property. And if 50 my
counsel proceeded, there would be very
remarkable point for the decision of his
ludship. For he went on to elicit that Mr.
Wendlc, after losing nearly the whole of
V,
such determined circumstances, that even
the charity Of coroners jury had been
to pronounce it feLO 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 flo de sc, that they became the
property of the crown, consequent on his
)nti
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 aforc
said.
In addition to all this But no; will
spare the reader the future particulars OF
this involved case. Suffice it to say that
it was decided in my favor; but it was
carried to a 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 tiiat the
original thieves were produced, one OF
them no other than my burglars friend
Toncy (and | was threatened with an ac-
ton by the maker of the safe for stating
that Toney broke open the "Unimpeacha-
Bile" in five minutes in my Outhouse). Here
the decision went against me. Finally,
the case came before the bench of judges,
where a majority of one reversed the rul-
ing of the lower court.
was therefore at last so far successful
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 / must inevitably have gone
there had lost.
The very sight of a sale-catalogue is
now sufficient to produce from Mrs. I.
sniff off about the capacity of three-yol-
ume novel; Chambers Journal.