Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-06-03
BINGHAM, TOMEEY AND HOUGH.
Reply by Rr. J. 3. Bingham to Mr.. HOush's
Bill In Ehan0eFY.
The History Of the I've BglIstla Companies
A Rather IBVSlVsd Case.

In the columns Of a contemporary, and
give Mr.. Bingham the benefit of the fol-
lowing lengthy rsjoinder to the brief
synopsis or Hough's bill in chancery
which we published In Wednesdays AP-
PEAL:
# only One-sided er p0rts bills filed in
the ehsueery courts were published, great
injustice might be lone to every person
who may chance to be sued in that tri-
bunal. Certainly the publication in yes
terday's APPEAL Of the version Of q bill
said to have been filed by Ruel Hough, is
calculated to do great injustice to myself.
However aver59 l may be to having my
private affairs made the subject Of news
paper publications, I am compelled to
notice this publication in the APPEAL, TO
the end that no injury may result to limo
cent parties, and he enemies of the Sun
newspaper may be frustrated in their de-
signs.
l. In 1865, solely on account Of pros
trated health sold out the Bulletin news
paper and job printing establishment to
parties who we're afberWard incorporated
as the Bulletin Publishing Company, for
S72,75O, taking a deed of trust on the prop
srty to secure the deferred payments,
2. 1 was never q member, or in any
other way connected with the Bulletin
Publishing Company.
8. In the early part of the year 1858, it
first became apparent to me that the BUlle-
tin Publishing Company was hOpelessly
involved. I toOk steps to fOreclOse the
mortgage through thetrustse denOminated
in the deed, and subsequently became the
purchaser from the trustee, paying $40, 900
in the paper eff the company, leaving some
| S23 500 Of the cOmpsny's notes still unpaid.
This sale was with the assent of all the
parties in interest then In the city, and
was only assented to by me after the
members Of the company had had
every possible opportunity to Sc
cure a more advantageous Offer
4. Shortly after 1 had thus become the
| purchaser, Mr.. Tomeny, who was q large
! stakeholder in the Bulletin Publishing
| Company, returned to the city, and in q
private conversation, sought to make IL
appear that 1 had done him injustice in
buyiug the Bulletin establishment under
the trust during his absence, thereby
shutting him OF rom all possibility Of Sc
curing any part Of his late investment.
He implied that 10 was not doing as L
would be done by. Wishing to take sd-
vantage OfnO man, I asked him 10 state
what he would give me tor the property
thus bought under the trust. He made
an offer considerably less than I had paid,
which I nevertheless accepted prompt
ly. he said then ''the establishment
is mine" The sale being made,
he then proceeded to inform me the
real reason that induced him to become
the purchsser-that he had had an under
standing with certain leading Radical pol
iticians, and the plan was to build up 8
great influential Radical organ at Mem
phis, which should receive the patronage
OF ali the party in the State. He only de-
sired that I should keep It a secret as to
the price be wss to pay me for the prop
erty, as he had already secured partners
with abundant means to join him in the
enterprise. To this I assented, as I also
did sfterward, to make the transfer to
whoever or in Whatever way he might
direct.
5. When all Tomeny's ARRANGEMENTS had
been'msde, the property was transferred
to J. NJ. Currie & Co., of which firm j. N.
TOmeny and RUel HOugh were the real
owners and managers, and George G.
HOugh and J. NJ. Curris their agents, and
cO-psrtners and associates. The notes for
the deferred payments were signed by J.
NJ. Currie & Co., and Endorsed alternately
by J. NJ. TOmeny and Ruel HOugh. These
notes were secured by mortgage upon the
establishment conveyed. When they be-
came due, two of the notes, each for $500
one Endorsed by Tomeny and one by \
HOugh-were paid. Before the third One
became due, Currie, George HOugh n
Ruel Hough had abandoned the concern.
TOmeny made known the facts to me, and
with his consent 1 took possession OF the
establishment, with the view of saving
from the wreck whatever 1 could. No
one g objected.
8. subsequently, when the holders of
the aforesaid notes sought to fOreclOse the
TOmeny resisted il, and set up the absurd
claim that by one Of the provisions Of the
trust, he, having paid the two notes first
falling due, was entitled to nave the
refunded to him, before the hold
of the subsequent notes would be
entitled to receive q cent? In other words,
if he mad gone on n paid every note of
the purchase money but one, and I had
been compelled to fOreclOse the mortgage
on hat one, that 1 wOHld have to pay back
to him all that he had paid.
z. On this absurd pretense, Of buying
article and then compelling the seller
to pay back all that he has received for
It, is founded the claim Of HOugh. He
claims to have paid on the purchase mon
one of the notes for $500. He never
paid his own note to me. It was paid by
romsny, who discounted the note before
Ii came due. And now, following Tome
ly's example with the trustee, he would
make me pay back to him the $500 he Is
supposed TO haYe paid Tomeny on the
purchase money. This is the entire gist
IF his bill in chancery, although it is not
made to appear so in the APPEAL,
s. While I only received $1,000 Of the
purchase money, TOmeny and Hough
managed to sell Of over $500 of the ma
erial conveyed to them. This amount,
the trust, was to be paid to me as
security on the deferred pay
nents. But while b sales were made to
ippesr on their own books, not q cent Of ]
{ has ever come into my hands. Thus,
While TOmeny and HOugh paid 5000 on
heir original purchase, they put into
heir pockets more than that amount de-
lived from the sale Of my property
And now, with 3 hardihoOd almost with 7
ut q parallel, Hough put up 3 plea that, I
,ecsuse his enterprise was e misadven-
ure, I should be made to pay him back
he small amount Of $500, while S22, 800 of
be original purchase money remains In
,aid-fOr more than One-hRlt Of which his
,sper has been executed.
9. I never was a partner of Tomeny's in
business, except in the earnings OF
he Msrshsl's Office, and out OF that, to /
he extent perhaps Of 81, 900, I have thus
az been sWindled.
10. As to whether TOmeny practiced &
rsud on Hough In acting as seller and
uyer ct the same time, the public is as
yell qualified to judge as myself. But
Tough was made aware Of all that Tom
ny did in the very matter Of which he Z
Ow complains over two years ago; and
nile both would deprive me OF my rights
q this matter, they have been very inti-
late In their social INT personal and I
relations for all that time. II he I
ras defraudsd at all, In the matter Of
hitch he complains, 1t was by Tomeny;
nd yet for two years last past he has
ugged the man known to him to be the
rrOng-dOer but the more closely to his
and never set up any p~retense of
liustice against either TOmeny or myself,
ntil both he and TOmeny had removed n
4 their property beyond the reach Of n
xecutiOn-the One to Boston, and the !,
her to New York. The intimstion, even n
Y the remotest implication Of psrticlpa- q
in this fraud, If any was peFpetrated, ~
r any other, is as unjust as Il Is unbound 4
/, and slanderous to the LAST degree. n
J. B. BINGHAM. n
n. B.-A bill was filed in chsncery over a.
year ago, by W. A. McClOy and other 81
)lders Of the above notes Of NJ. Currie cl
Co., Endorsed by Tomeny and HOugh 81
s~pectfvely, asking that g trustee be APP n
to foreelOse the mortgage by Il
hich they were secured, to the end that b
% remainder Of the purchase money, tC
counting TO $22,500, still due and unpaid, pl
light be secured; yet Notwithstanding "
Ost Of the facts above reeited are con- IS
ined t~herein-for others were cognizant d.
them as well as myself-no newspaper "
Is ever deemed it Of sufficient public Inn "
TO make any alluston to 1t what "
er. The reason for pursuing different W
urss, at this time, may not be difficult 90
apprehend. J, B. b. az
VENTrLAToRs. New style hats, at
LEIDY & CO.'S.
uorrau nav hoarS .yfFl ba