National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-02-19
ROBINSON rs. VAIL.
Recent Partners Settling Their Business AT
fnIrs In Court.

PARTNERS Settltng busiutsS al
fairs In Court.
The important case of Bushrod Robinson
against William Wall came before the court in
bano- Justices Wylie Macarthur, and Hagner
yesterday for hearing, and will probably oc.
cupy their attention for a couple of days.
Nessrs Enooh Totten and J. j. johnson APP
pear for the plaintiff and Messrs. William A.
Cook, Walter $. Cox, and Randall Haguer for
the defendant There has been considerable
said about this suit and extensive interests to
both the litigants are involved The follow.
ing stipulation performs an important part In
the cause
This agreement made the st day orJanuary 1870,
by and between William Wall aud Bushr0d Rob.
nson, trading under the frm Of Wall Robinson &
Co. at No 92l Pennsylvania avenue, Washington,
D. G.; b. Robinson having invested no capital in
the business or trade, has no interest whatever in
the stock fixtures Of said store. the said William
Wall Is alone personally responsible and liable for
the debts coutracted'by said firm the said b. Rob
inson is TO give all his time and attention to the
business carried on at the said store, and receive
commission OF 3 per cent upon the e gro IS
Wall, Robinson " Co., to be taken from the cash
book as in former settlements. This agreement to
remain in force one year from date.
The bill alleges that, in compliance with this
agreement. he entered into the firm aud bus
iness and continued In the employment Of the
defendant under IL until January l, 1872. It
further alleges that ut that date the defendant
increased the amount of the commission to
per cent. on the gross amount OF sales, the
agreement remaining tho same IN every other
particular the defendant so notified his book
keeper, and directed him to note the change
in the agreement from 3 to per cent upon
said books that complainant remained in the
employment of defendant at the increased
rate until the LIST day of January, A. d. 1876
when the agreement terminated.
To this bill the defendant made answer.
Headmitted the agreement Of January 1, 1870,
which was to remain in force one year. He
admitted that under the same the complainant
entered on the performance ofacts required of
| him. aud performed the same in n mode sup
posed by defeudent to be correct; but declares
that the complainant continued to act under
| said agreement until January ], 1876, and re-
ccived full compensation for his services and
more He denies on personal knowledge that
| after the expiration OF the period embraced in
| said agreement the compensation of the COM
| pninaut was increased by defendant to per
cent ON the gross amount of sales. On the
contrary, that complainant continued in con-
nection with the business on the terms set forth
| in the agreement, and without change or modi-
| iication thereof.
| The case was referred to the auditor to state
an account, and he reported balance due Mr.
Robinson of S3,92SSO. Exceptions were filed
to this report, The judge holding the Equity
Court dismissed the compliments bill, from
which an appeal was taken, and the defendant
appe led because the court refused to give him
n decree against Robinson. The defendant
alleges that the auditor omitted to charge Rob
inson with S23,576i "A, rs shown by the books
to have been received by him in the course OF
his agency, which lie had not accounted for
The defendant claimed that, upon proper
accounting, tho complainant was indebted t.
him to the amount OF over $4,000, and nskct
a decree for that balance, which was denied.
\ vast amount of testimony has been taker
on both sides in support of the respective
claims aud many charges and counter-chargc
are made rs to improper conduct in the firm
transactions. Mr.. Robinson is accused of mis-
applying the moneys Of the business house
falling to account for the receipts fully, ant
carrying private banking fund that evidence
would not sustain as coming honestly from TIN
business. To this the gentleman makes answe
that most Of these deposits were firm paper
used in that respect, and that he did not appro
pirate any money to his personal use that die
not lightfully belong to him. lie in turn
claims tho additional ! per cent as commits
c sions on sales, which Nh Wall ressts and u;
serts was never u part OF the stipulation be
tween them.
$ The reading Of the record was begun yeste
day aud argument will he reached to-day.