The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-22
uRITtb STATES DISTRICT cOuAT-M BANKRUPTCY.
The Bininger Cnse-Important Question o
Jurisdiction.

The Bininger Cnse-ImpOrtant Question Of
Jurisdiction.
Before Judge Blatchford
IN The Matter or me Petition Of Hardy Blake d Co.
vs Bis,tager Co.-This case came up yesterday for
trial. the question before the jury being as to
whether Bininger Il Clarke should be adjudicatcd
bankrupts. The matter has been some time In dis
pute and the facts have already appeared Bininger
4 Co. were propretors Of the large wholesale con-
Germ at the corner OF Liberty ana Tenn
pie streets. 1t appeared that some differ
ence arose between Bininger Clarke at
time when Us alleged, they were unable to
meet their engagements, and that q receiver was
appointed the property, which was represented
a. far exceeding the liabilities OF the firm. Some OF
the creditors took steps to have Bininger Clarke
declared bankrupts; but as the property was placed
In the hands Of receiver for its proper disposal
they were restrained from taking action. The case
was SET down for trial.
Mr.. Compton, with whom was Mr. J. F. Morgan,
moved for an adjournment on behalf or Mr.. clarke, on
the ground that one OF his relatives was danger
ously Ill., and thai postponement OF the case was
necessary. He desired moreover, TO argue the ques-
ton OF jurisdlction; but At present he moved that
the matter be adjourned.
and insisted that the should be proceeded with
Judge Blatchtord decided that the case should be
Evidence was then taken on behalf OF the petit
toners, showing that Bnnger a. Go. had contracted
0ebts with them, That when the notes become due
they not paid and that the they desired
to put the Irm into bankruptcy was to ges their
money.
fned and testified to the condition OF the firm to
the effect that their Liabilities amounted to $2l5,000
or 500 O0 while their assets were from $780, to
$500 ooo. the average amount OF their assets was
Abraham B. Clark was then examined, and in
reply to MIR. Compton stated that he had been con-
cected with the drm since 1921 and had been work
ing partner since 1886; the hrm was much embar-
rassed since the beginning OF November last; Binin-
ger issued paper without consulting him or telling
him what 1t was for; at that time there was srin-
gency in the money market and the issue Of large
quantity was accordingly attended with depressing
results, although the firm was largely solvent az
that time, but there was nothing they could imme-
dlatly convert into money without loss or without
jeOpardiZing the interests OF the credt0rs on the
Ash or November Binnger served HIM with notice
OF dissolution OF partnership and in few days
against MIN; subsequently Bininger told him that he
tCarke) had no rights IN the premises. that lie had
NOT REQ Sentm 10 tne concern anu .nat nc woula
had rights equal to those Of Bininger and that he
merely applied for the appointment Of q receiver In
In crOssexaminaton by Mr. Bangs the witness
referred to the properly owned by the firm, lnciu-
ding real estate IN Virginia and the premises in this
city and proceeded to give a statement OF the re-
ceipts in case the property had been auctloned.
Had the wines been sold without advertisement they
would not have brought half their value.
After some further evidence had been adduced
Mr.. Compton addressed the jury, contending at
some length that no act OF bankruptcy had been
committed.
A heightened discussion then ensued as to whether
Blnnger h Co. were solvent at the time the receiver
was appointed. Finally Mr.. Bangs moved to amend
the petition and the Court having granted the motion
tine case was adjourned till this morning.
Condemned Property.
The following property was yesterday condemned,
no claimants having appeared after the return OF
the usual process had been made:-Five barrels OF
whIskey found In Front street; one still, found on
the southeast corner Of Ninth avenue and Forty
sixth street.