Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-06-20
II. 0. CLAUGnToN.

Ny bcs efforts having been used during the
war 10 advance The inerca, OF til" BIuk OF the
ord D2u:inion called forth this correspJude uce
Uc,ve eE those Directors OF the bank who re-
manned in a xanira during tie war, anu
myself. W 70 was abs -. | could not therefore
cOusent iiIa, Iwo a thar uum!"r should settle
our difficulties. therefore proposed the III yde
always regarded honorable aGd just for such
settlements. That proposition Was rade ani
refused 10 November 1866 aud ~ remained
without urthrr hearing I'll the receipt Of
Nlr. C'au- h % 5 letter, da:ed April 22. 1870.
called urOu INN promptly, and had The H.
fcr7cw rcqu s:Cd IL bis room 1t FJrd Hotel,
Richmond. In mat ln!ergl W, | LAID before
him tue rutllc cOrress o deuce herewith pro.
dlced and sta'eJ 70 him, rru.d only renew
the proposition | had iua!c-hc promised
upcD his r,tu7D 10 Alexandria lie would sub
nit it TO the bon,d FIR their action. In the
Interview WAN Mr. CiaugttoD express d .
er3a, desire to AVOID litigation, for the reasun
stated to HIN, that II tnat mode vas Diet
miocd upoc b. the back | would he reluctantly
compelled 20 oriag Two snit+ against The bank
TO obtain my ugts ar. Ciaughtous letter
of May lots, 1870, show he proposition was
agau submitted aud refused. Ny most rca
-onatle proposition having been dccllrcd, and
The law Of their choice aavl: been rcsOrtcd
to, bad 20 option 10 The matter. Il Was due
| tG me, IN view Vl my previous couucct!0D with
the bark, and also TO the stockholders, that the
Investigation | 80 much desired should have
b;rn made as the Oauk a wed as myself Was
interested IN tie Inv stig ton The Board OF
Direct II claimed 81 me S26, 800 received in
LJnl dcia money /; one vi The dIt~r bees ct
opinion between IL. and they brought suit Tor
IL, j, h.
Cour! Of Rrhluoud. I'D The instruction. o.
the most Xa'7r Judge OF that court, the
jury VIZ compehd 10 rcnd vci1lc; against
i,.e fer rlev t.uaGteJ doinll$-the IDS ructlon
has b:eu sustained by the Court OF Arpcals-
the jury. however, before rendering he vcrdlc
acquired by the instruction, returned INTO
court, aud arpeal"d to the judge to know
whether they W re 'bJuDd 10 obey his lnS';uc-
tl0n-thc cvld Ice showing the great MJnSftce
If such a dcmaud. But for the nstru>it,n,
they re opposed to giving unc cent La con.
Iirlr!us his ju t.mcn, OF eleven hundred dol
lars. he Supr ur Court Of Appeals say
I'm thus affirming l., We See no reason TO
impute any i,ialuc 10 the 't,inndcnt he seems
10 have actrd Throughout W IN Il coascieutlous
rtg:ri iJT what Tie cJDsd.! ID; the bes! lGter">t
OF the Dauk, hu, his motives. noScVcr coDsc!en.
liUus, cannot cxoscratc him from Ilat'l,llei
for his collection aud appropriation OF money
b',oLgIug TO the plaintiffs.
Ia inakiog the c,l-ctlous of interest on State
bonds. a. | had done previous &c the war
did suppose | was the plar;iff agent, as did
also tie bank i.sclI. WHO had c0nlrucd to elect
me its Pre,:d at whilst | wa> residing IN
Rlchuonn, duliug The VT, which the Court
Of Appeals say was Ill raI. lo making the
collection ol Interest certainly acted as | be-
IicycJ for the interest OF the bauk, and also 10
liz appropriation, and wpud haVe so proved,
had | succeeded IN payOg the tweDty thousand |
dollars due F.x's estate by the B.pk OF the
Oh Dominion lu specie. with the Confederate
mouey, which | eodcavored TO do. l. 1t is TO-
tended to ultimate that l drew checks Oh the J