Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-01-07
HARDWOOD CASES.

Two of Them Before Clerk Mann Yester-.
and a Queer Bank That Acknowledges
ErrOrs--O'Brien Puts Troublesome Cues
tions to c. II. Petit, and Judge Nelson
Called Upon to Decide Whether the In
quiry Shall be Allowed.
1t isn't often that suit in foreclosure de-
velops such lively tilt rs that which took
place between counsel in one of the HARDWOOD
cases in the United States circuit court yester-
day afternoon. Two caseswer up, or rather
the same plaintiff appeared in both actions
with different garnishees. The cases were that
of r. M. Obertenffer and Others against n. B.
HARDWOOD and the First National bank of Min
neapOlis, garnishee and the same against n.
B. Harwood VS., Curtis II. Petit, garnshee.
The first case came before Mr.. Mann, the
referee to take disclosure, the facts of the case
being as follows: At the time of serving the
garnishee summons the books OF the bank
did not, it is claimed, show a balance in favor
of HARDWOOD. 1t was afterwards discovered
that two mistakes, in his favor, had been
made, one of $4,000 and another of $1,000, or
an actnal balance in favor of HARDWOOD for
S14,0
Before the mistake had been discovered,
judgment had been confessed by HARDWOOD in
favor of the bank for the amount claimed to
be due, as shown by the books, but, as subse-
quently shown, the face of the latter really
showed balance of $4,000 in favor of Har-
wood, above his Indebtedness to the bank.
The garnishees claimed that the S14, OOO
should be applied on judgment, while plaintiff
held that as executions had been issued and the
property levied upon to satisfy the creditors,
N
In the second case, over which the dispute
occurred, the garnishee, Curtis II. Petit, came
before the referee, Mr.. Mann, to make his
disclosure. During the disclosure plaintiff S
counsel, Mr.. O'Brien, put certain questions
to the garnishee respecting conversations
which he held with Mr.. HARDWOOD in regard to
proposed sale of his stock of goods to him
which occurred previous to the assignment by
| HARDWOOD to him, and previous to the service
of the garnishee summons.
| Mr.. G. d. O'Brien appeared for the plaintiff
and Mr.. Levi represented the interests of the
| garnishee, Mr.. VIM. Lochren, manifesting q
| friendly interest in behalf of his brother coun
| sci, Thos Levi.
! Under the advice of his counsel, Mr.. Petit
| the garnishee, declined to answer the ques
| tiOns bearing on certain conversation with
| Mr. HARDWOOD, the question in effect being il
! Mr. Petit had not asked HARDWOOD if his sole
|
owing to financial embarrassment.
The question was stubbornly contested by
counsel, when it was agreed to submit thu
matter to Judge Nelson.
Mr.. O'BIien made a long and logical argll
ment. He held that the assignment was void
as to the rights of creditors, claiming that il
might have been designed to force fraudulen
sale and thereby beat the creditors Counse
also claimed that the assignee had not quail
] a1 hxycr Twin hon md hot hnh aH Ri h
to dispose of the goods.
In reply, abiding to the question, Mr.. Loeb
rem held that inquiries such as had been made
were not proper under the present proceedings
he held that The sole object in view was to ex
tract information to be used as a basis fo
some future action.
Mr.. Levi held that the questions were pu
with view of laying foundation for filing ;
complaint; the garnishee could not be com
PEELED to disclose knowledge to be used in
suit against himself; such process amounted
to an inquisition and counsel was merely on
fishing excursion for information. The poin
wss warmly disputed and taken under consid
eratiOn