, 1877-01-12
Another Phase in the 1ntorminablo Fox
l. Howard Bankruptcy
Matter,
Bankruptcy Proceedings Entered Against
the Chicago Wrought Mi!
Company.
New Suits, judgments, Confess
sions, Bankruptcies, Etc.


hall OF Qit OtHcf LaH.3AycIs WHO 1ECi thCE tAAes
burlc,isonne, fled bill yesterday In the Circuit
Court against the City Of Chicago and the CHI
csgo Gas-Light Il Coko Company 10 nbrogatc
tho contract Of June 2, 1860 between the city anil
company. Tho complainant states that tile Hss
Company was Incorporated In 1912 Under tic
narno of the Chicago Gns-Llght & Coke COM
pany. In 1859 tho Common Council of CHI
cago "in violation Of tho trusts rcposca
in them by virtue Ut their official
power" and In direct fraud on the rights
Of the cit!zcns Of Chicago, made tcn.year
contract with the Company for lighting tho
streets with gas. Tho contractprteo was
Sc o thousand cubic feet. Tho rharter OF tho
city then In forco directed that no contract
should j,c made hy tho Common Council nor
any expense iuc,lrred, unless m appropriation
were previously n,adc concerning such expense.
Tic members Of the Council wcrc at That time,
and hnvp been cyur since, elected for two years
only, md nut for ten years.
Iii May, 16G0, The Common Council authorized
tho Mayor and Comptroller to make anothcr
te,,,year contract With the t'as,l.igllt Company
rate not To exceed $3.50 per thousand cubic feet.
auch contract was made june 2, 1SGtl When
this cor'srnct was entered into no p appropriation
lighting ttv streets is alleged to be ono Of tho
Tho cost ior the. year. ending May,
1870 for lighting tho who'e city ~ va Nt,a
The ratio II Increase Of cxpcuso exceeds tlpt Of
trc population.
Tie Chicago Gas-Iicht & Coke Company
now clntns something over $500 900 as due on Its
ca,,not mike any INSTRUMENTATION ior any expenses
ior more tas ss xsat he Mr. a,eEss E .st ,sa The
the Companv vs. spcnt }so.Uo nnions tlo Alder
1ncn 10 rct ii. lii. therefore. asks TINT the city
NAV be cnIoinca from naylnc Or tho Company
ly,,tu receiving the $360.6OO now claimed 10 10
:larci i to be void. sfcssrs. Mumphrcyyl1lo and
Mitchell oppenr ior The coipplaIuant.
nAoE vs.. rAnMglEg.
Judge Moore Yesterday dcCtcd tho case Of
David A. t;a.,e niyhInst franklin Purtuelee atll
tlisnlisscti thG bill. Tho bill was brought ~
rcttio 4 nartncrsh,p, which lai existed for
twenty Years between tho plaintiff md defend
at rng h1 wGls o. wns ts NJ assonnt sa
rrown iii nn1 njtnust rirh in thc BUSINESS. aul
finally when t;age got Into trouble through his
iicfalcatio,,s rs CIV Treasurer, hty porturr, not
i,nnaturaly, wanted to settle up. t;agc At iirst
tlcmurr]. hut nt irnrt1,ronscntctl. and lie nart
nershp WA liesoiyci ,Jan. i. 1911. par,nc]eo
paii about sill.WU In bonds anu somv s50Oo
Il, rusll nnf nssTIei All thc I1rhts nf tiIc ram
Germ. md (lace reijnG@,iI,seJ iii further claim
arninst tho firm. Shortly nftcr. however. he
Bcring to inyc rcconsdrrcti lis decision a;,d br.
ruu suit nrutnht lms fnrncr partner. c!aiu,tut.
mcnt to dissolve. and alleging tlat NJ. Tarn1eico
st!ii owed lin nlout sllN0o0.
Sjn,rtiv i,r forc In fiss,,i,fiop u arn,n. that
tnr Two nartcs rat into tr,,ib,s with eaci, nthrr
ta1 s,n.aui ~ i Mi, ,s .tys s oon n u;
f;.sr T., t?.1n thrnot,nn, y, ,,,eS q n, ~ si
tIefrnt,nnt II, hls bnsimrss. IL nstc
nSHtt"rs ,.nrso ~ f,- rinr,".too .hMsi,
nttr. nj. ti,rc,t In ,lIiI,nratr,v h.r,,a:I
un MI thr ho,ts ~ thc ri, trm 81, thot f,nrc
c6ouII mi rro,riuc fhrm T'h;s rrcntc,, ai1s.
pIrion that t,crc was sunctt,inr wrony, thul,s;,
Il il hi ;nsttr. tn ssv ti,n, tl,"rc WA n"t n
.tnr, ,n.sas. ~ ~. 49, .,,i ~ I.t.s 49, 49, ~ ~ ~
ira H. Fl eGasro G1 ,r n1.S roaneS sn On se
ali d. stroye ths tcstiuony of ctthcr Was t"a. n..
tifely parol and elreun,.tantiai. About q dozen
;,l 'sssss an cS se we're Ss aud the
Judyc Aluore vrstcrIay. IN tItsmiss,up .be hill,
eail tliat f;aae 6atl Ind 1cess tn liz ii1n b,Ls
bhysy hysy uay "f a y ana soaa
ho mn,la thc ecitfctnrnt Ir hi nntM
friends a,1d advisers and tic advice or Testimony
of a bookkccper who ind previously been 'i viii,
arrive al tIly rouc!,Ison ,o reached. II was 9if.
ilct to ses Inv ,nnn TN, In %a ,stc "' snt. ~
Element q . Ease under s,,sl! circumstances
1T uysr It. II Ii. i nat Ennw Whit ",s wss j., IN
thnss hnEs hc o".,1,. n Eno~ o", =" .n,..t 20 w. ",
charged with thc knowledEo ti.at he ought M to
have ad In thy transaction Of his OWL bus,ncss.
cycr reliryc lin un,irr thosr cr"ustn,tscs oi II.
: ti4le iho srftlcu,cut ,lclibcratety. an1 afts,
llu lad hal n. Opportunity i, examine
the buuk6 IL lie did not tln II, IL ,vns lis nw,
ut md bis heightened In II tst rcsrect s Teu uT
prevent lis recovery. 80 's''1~' "o3''
'Thr iii wus therefore dtsmtased. Mr.. Goc.,,
couliscl then askcI fur md wns uiiou"I m ~
costs. '~' 80 '0 "'''' - WV ~ e''s'
Tur urnc4srtt.r iy.unlncz cour.uv
Frank ii. Fu1lausbcc. Receiver oI tta Sicrr,u,
tilc iu,ursncr Cuul,,any. In thu cnse ~ .inhn T.
frsts1.;ay ~ ILL., ars @ I!hf s!mc II. n.p rSp"s
lis states tint WIEN H. was a,nriptrt i" ~.
ceIyc,i n clai,n sgainst tic 1lolu In.uranc,
l",,i roet ~ E;"Snrs,n.u. a.As''s '"' H.,
medIatcly BEGAN suIt tn rcco%,
tlr tnutiey and securities die undsr tLu so,,
tract. liz INK alsn II ,murtr.Se i"r sol. IN -,
suuit. pr,ners~ ,.wucJ hy A. II pron,' Viii, i j.
In sut hi ill., n'.,1t",a Il narv' w "r''o ',,,,i
worthIrs4. ,isn ;. mis- f.r III ~, ~ w., H."
Cornell on With siII.Sn Ina hsnyai, a. .,,,,,r", m
by trusi.rcu: nuts Of il. l.. iIot,s.f, far NE
th0 sr,1,r,YI hv trmxt .i.,t. ni.n NJ. ~ II
% ~ s.s M nish nnto u .; ~