Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1879-01-24
rlndrx, nrnlr 10 ner. a. A. Adams.


points in that article referred to Mr.. Adams
relations to the old School Board ring of
Perrysburg, aud especially his dependence
on aud support by that interest and to
the results OF the trial before the Presbytery,
| showing that gentleman to have been gull
/ ~ Of several gross ohenses, including pre-
variCaton, viulation Of faith in the expos
ure of official transactions, the defeat by
arbitrary action, of efforts employed for the
/ adjustment OF Church troubles, and the
obtaining OF money by means not in "ac-
cordance with strict business integrity"
At the end of six weeks from the publ
cation IN the Blade, Mr.. Adams appars in
u card publicly, to respond to the exposi-
tion the reinmade, and Introduces his article
by saving, that il is done ain Difference
to the expressed wishes of some of his
friends" But IL is noticeable that he CON
fnes himself entirely TO one point of the
case-.the second charge, involving the
sand transaction, which was given ~
the Blade as follows. 1.-THE year should
have been 1851:
" Nr. Adams, MS owner and agent had
charge of certain sand beds in the Maumee Riv
er, which furnished material of value. and
for which there was demand from different
parties. Among those who had purchased
SHn0 was tne nTfn OI WliOnK DrNtneTs NJ Inle-
do Ii seems that IN the spring Of 1871, go
tilatious were had between this firm and MIR.
Adams for an arrangement that Mr.. Adams
camd as due to him the sum OF S257, on past
account for sand that the result OF persona
conference between the parties was a verbal
agreement that Wilcox Brothers should pay
the claim Of 1921, on old accout and, as con
sideratiOn therefor should have exclusive right
to the sand AT Il stipulated price, which agree
ment was to be put in writing by Mr.. Adams
and be signed by the parties. In pursuance
oi this understanding, Mr.. Adams drew up n
contract in duplicate, which was signed by
Mcssrs. Wilcox and himself, the former party
not stopping to read it, Upon subs queut ex-
aiming their copy, they found that the prnvis-
ion for exclusive use OF sand was wholly omit
ted. The day after signing, they wrote Mr.
Adams, calling his attention to the omission,
and asking that new cOntrat be made, con-
forming to the agreement. To this lie replied,
refusing their demand. II is further shown,
that on his return from Toledo, after the signing
OF the contract Mr.. Adams stated tue case to
Messrs. Trowbridge aud TOlmcn, then members
Of his church, and boased Of the advantage g
thus taken 0f Messrs. Wilcox, as n "shrewd
business Transaction"
In his card Mr.. Adams now says that
the contract above referred to was signed
by him, but not by the other party. OF
that agreement he says, il gave the fright
to dig sand Tor live years, Mt the stipulated
price of % cents a cord, which was all that
they asked him to do that day" He says
the parties the next day, wrote him chat
they wanted the exclusive right TO dig the
sand" which he declined to grant. In this
he seeks to palm off on the public, that
prior to the writing of the contract there
was no understanding as to the Exclusive
right" 1t was the omission to insert this
very condition in the contract which con-
stituted, in the mind OF Mr.. Adams, "a
smart business Transaction" but in the
priipiflsh hfAff. fAff qiherEA moral turpitude. At the
attributed to him by Messrs. Trowbridge
and Tolman, relative to the understanding
as to the exclusive right to dig sand"
and his neglect to insert it in the contract,
but stated in open session that he knew
Wilcox Bros. supposed that clause was in
the contract, but lie knew it was not and
he had not promised TO put itin," and dis
missed the subject with lofty toss OF the
head, and saying "that it is of no account,
| anyway"
The Presbytery found that it bore at
at least the appearance of evil" and he
now seeks to draw attention away from the
facts, as stated by himself, and to present
an issue not before the Presbytery. This
is disigenious, and cannot he permitted.
He now represents the amount at that time
due for sand to be 1921, and not S257, MS
s'"'Gu " hiH, ~, at 'he tiine ana thal IL was
pau W hr' Si"rk year Subsequent 10 the
;inle IN, wneh MI ADAMS sald 1t was ?Zo|.
was 'hlS reauctloh III the nature ot an
eoa'ehen' OF 9loo IN the Dlll, ana made
III consideration oil the denial and refusal
oi the exclusive use OF the SAND, winch
cons'i'u'eu tue phs'S OF the understanding
ol tne PARTIES win Mr' Adams, rs stated
oy lhat,genslemah nt The time OF alleged
payment oil ?ZoI II "on!u seem So AT
H1 ,e's' "cc9ruahs 10 me present showing oi
;, Mr. a., 'he transaction u.u NOT ylelu rs
Iarse,y as tI"' gentleman NJ the time sup
PoSTeu !. ulu'
but IL ~ NOT worm whlle to spend words
on TINS card ol Mr.. Adams, since that is in
no way pertinent 70 the real matter In
manu- Inc question Is not as 10 what was
the actual state OF iactS ON which he sup
posed himself TO be acting. Whether or
not lie actually carried out fraud upon
the parties with whom he dealt, is not an
eiemeht III Tie case, but whether such was
hiSPnrPoSe'
lhat IL was sucn Is SHOWN by the state
,neh'S Oh Messrs, lroWDrldge ana lolman
neiore lhe rreeoytery OF what Mr. A. tod
them al the 'lme OF MS action, which
statements were maue IN that gehtiemans
presence ana mere, by nm, not only dis
lInctly assented to ns correct, hut declared
TO ne "a matter ot no account
IL was on such showing that the fresby-
.eIy Vo'eu me cnarBe OF MT ADAMS having
"hown wan. OF strict business integrity
hot sustained IL seems however, that
heilner th,s Verdict nor mr.. Adams state
meht OF me case, is satisfactory to that
gentiemahs lriehds' al whose suggestion,
ana lor whose SAKE" he has undertaken
10 Improve ms case. ihey appear not to
agree win him' mat the sand transaction
was m"''er Oh no account; ana ADVISE
MN not 10 reiy, ior his vindlcation, upon
or9tnrem; %anfa ,,.,
",oo H." ~ Ill .,atno"1 "pie"lS W oe