The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-09-04


Tothc sheriff or any constable Of said county eelng
OF Kentucky county Of jefferson and city Of Louis
Vile, has fled his petition In the District Court Of
G. Randall tho former citizen Of the county 81
Travis and State Of Texas and the latter, who form
resident Of the State; which fact 81 nonfesdence Il
fully supported BY petitioneg affidavit to said Pe
ton through his attorneys OF record Mesers. Walton
& Green, alleging in substance az Follows:
That defendants are indebted to petitioner ID the
sum OF fonr hundred and eight dollars ard
seventh Of Juiy A. d. 1874 and that said liability was
incurred by defendants under their 1rn1 name and
style Of C. L. Nitschke & Co. That defendants are
further indebted to petitioner IN the just and fun
OF four hundred and thirteen dollars and scyentyght
cents with interest At legal rates since the twenty
debtedncss contracted by defendants under their
firm name and style OF Nitschke a Randall That the
firm OF NJ Erich & Co (Of which yonr petitioner was,
the time Of such contracted indebtedness copart
nerl on or about March 20 1871 drew their certain
BIZ Of exchange on defendafts under their said Arm
name and style Of Nitechkc & Randall for the sum 81
four hundred and ten dollars ana three cents. six
change by ssid defendants undor their fFn name,
,n ,,sTn scrss fbe fse tereofs ihsrs on ~ ost
the twentyfOurth day Of june oi2 the said firm Of NJ
Erich CO., made and drew their certain other Bill Of
exchange the said defendants under tAeir thcn firm
name and style OF C. L. Nitechkc q Co.. for the nm Of
four hundred and five dollars payable thirty days after
the date thereof which said second bill vas accepted BY
defendants under their then firm Of g u Nitechke
Co.. the presentation thereof BY endorsing s1id fm
said several aceeptances and endorsements Of said bills
OF exchange By said defendants for the amounts re-
cited and under and through said several arm names
aforesaid said defendants became liable, undertook
and promised 10 pay your pctoncr the amounts there
Of but which they have failed aud refused and gfil
fail and rcfnsc 10 do though often requested 20 the
damage Of your petitioner fO-it: IN the sum Of one
thousand dollara and petite alleges that the several
firms Of .Nitschrc 4 Randall" and C. i. Aiischke q
Co. werc virtually the same and composed 81 the emc
copartners and that aid change was cohcclycf ~
fraud and with the fraudulent Intent TO defaud yC
petitioner ana other creditors Of said firms Petitioner
further alleges that the Arm 81 M. Elrch Co, 10 now
dissolved and that he succeeded by the tenor Of said
dissolution 10 90 the asfetF Of said Gr b5 fccuaf
dOrsemcnt Ia blank: by reason q which he q the
legal and holder Of said bile u exchange and
entitled 70 sue therefor. Wherefore he pfayE indg
ment for his said debt expense u protest Interest
special relief BY attachment 81 properly. etc.
You are therefore, commanded 20 summon the said
A. q. Randall by pnbIicnfiou OF this WIT 30 the
Democratic i0flsIizda, weekly ncHspapcr published
IN the city Of Austin, for four consecutive 1Tccz prior
the return day thereof 10 be and appear before the
honorable District Court ~ TfngiE coanfy on the ht
Monday Of October A. D. 1878, thea end there q an
why Judgment should not be had aelin4 him. Hclein
fail not but o. This wit and year eeTcc iercon wake
due return ae the law directs.
Witness my hand and ho cal o. said District Cont
af once n the city o. Anf.in. AuEuei y .ti9-
fLE1 A. II NORRIS, Clerk.
By ". s. DUNK, Deputy
Received August ~ l6fi. ard ordered 20 Be frib.
iisied IN DtnoTnfic 5iaieasqA 10 four fnecessivc
weeks. GEO. B. IIifPBLNAE,
sheriff 81 Travis cosiig.
Dy J0HN + STozEss Deputy qHsl ~