Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1875-07-28

C1@J-OIHCI AC9Ul
A telegram to the Chicago Times
from Minneapolis gives the text of
Judge Young's decision in the case of
the Pacific Mail Steamship Company VS..
VIM. S. King. The decision does not
at all affect the real case, as it merely
dissolves the attachment to his prop
erty in Minneapolis. The suit to re-
cover the amount claimed still ponds:
The Pacific Mail Steamship Com
pany VS.. VIM. s. King. The matter
came on to be heard before the court at
chambers on an order OF said court re-
quiring to show cause why an attach
ment issued in said action, March 2,
1875, should not be set aside and vacat-
ed. As appears from the papers in the
case, the attachment was issued at the
time of the commencement of said
action upon the affidavit Of one Edward
T. Bartlett, of the firm of Ball, Bartlett
& Wilson, who were acting as counsel
for the plaintiff herein. The only por-
ton of said affidavit which it is necessary
for the court to consider in this pro-
ceeding is the portion which sets forth
the statutory ground upon which the
attachment was issued. 1t reads
as follows: "That said defend
ant has departed from the state
of Minnesota, as the deponent verify be-
Geves, with intent to delay his creditors,
and with the intent to avoid the service
of the summons" This. as the original
affidavit, is sufficient in its terms to war
rant the issuance of the writ. No facts
as basis for the belief of the affidavit
need be set forth, but it does not there
fore follow that there need be no facts
upon which such belief be founded. Such
belief must be based upon reasonable
cause, and when the party making the
affidavit is in a proper proceeding re-
CURED to disclose the facts which formed
the basis of his belief, he must disclose
such facts rs will show to the court his
belief well founded. It is not sufficient
for the creditor Or his representative
making an affidavit to rest upon the ar
bitrary belief in promises, independent
of any facts or circumstances connected
with the acts of the debtor which are
calculated to Prejudice the legal rights
of the creditor, for, while the law affords
to the creditor such remedy as
he may need for the protec-
ton of his claim, it so far as pos
sible will protect the debtor against any
unnecessary oppression, if he acts hon
orably and in good faith toward his
creditors. His property is inble to be
but it cannot be rendered subject to the
caprice of his creditors regardless of his
own acts Or intentions. The defendant
in this action, in many afidavits, denies
that he departed from the state of Min
nesota to avoid the service Of summons
or delay his creditors. The maker of
the original affidavit was then called
upon 20 disclose to the court the facts
and circumstances upon which his be-
lief in this regard rested as founda-
ton. This he seeks to do in his sup
porting affidavit, which, SO far as it
bears upon this point, is in substance
as follows: That deponent did not make
the affidavit On which this action is
based from personal or absolute knowl-
edge of the whereabouts and motives
of said King at that time, but his be-
lief of the truth of said affidavit, based
on the following facts, viz: That
the deponent was in the city of Wash
ington, in the District of Columbia,
during the months of January and
February, 1875, or large portion of
that time, being engaged before certain
investigating committees of Congress as
counsel for the Pacific Mail Steamship
Company, the committees being en-
gagged in investigating certain alleged
corrupt payment Of money by the form
er officers of the plaintiff to members of
Congress and others; that the deponent
was in Washington, as aforesaid, up to
February Oath, 1875, when he left there
for the city of New York, AMI on Feb
ruary 26th, 1875, as aforesaid, it was a
notorious fact, commonly talked of in
political circles, that the defendant in
this action was absent from his post of
duty in the city of Washington to avoid
the service of a subpoena of the House
of Representatives, who desired to ex-
anime him as witness in regard to the
alleged corrupt use of money as afore-
said; that the deponent had repeated
conversations with parties whose
duty it was to serve the said
subpoena on the defendant, and
was informed that the said defendant
was in Canada, as they verify believed,
and he would not return to the jurisdic-
ton of the United States until after
March 4, 1875, the day on which the
Forty third Congress would cease to ex-
list, and this fact, it is claimed, justified
the party in swearing that he verify be-
lieved that the defendant had departed
from the State of Minnesota with the in
tent to avoid the service of the sum-
mons. I cannot see how such facts af-
ford any reasonable cause for such be-
lief. The motives which induced the
defendant to depart from Washington
were entirely foreign to these intentions
on the part of the defendant upon which
the plaintiff demanded this writ of at
tachment. The reasons which caused
him to leave Washington could not pos
sibly have influenced him to leave the
State of Minnesota, as they were of sub
sequent occurrence, and were, if
they had so Influenced him, no
cause for the issuance of the writ of at
tachment, and would thereby have re-
suited in favor of the plaintiff, as courts
of Justice will not lend their aid to pun
ish parties for running away from con-