Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-08-24


The city claims. that of the $3.50
now due $22422. so is barred by statue of
limitation; this amount Judge Walker
in the compromise proposes to
waive, making the amounts which
he proposes to lose in the settlement
stand thus:
Interest barred by limitation, s2242.S0.
from August LIST to maturity, 1870.
due besides amount barred, 4 $40.
Walkers total loss, si,lsS.i0
Now if from this we deduct the
81, 242, 30 which the city council claims
would be net gamer, and the compro-
Sl,920. 10. But it is by no means GER
tain that the 81. 2l2. 80 is barred by linn
ita,ion, and should the suit go against
the city, then it will be loser, as stated
above, S41S2.40, and the cost of
suit besides, swelling the loss to over
5000.
To the above facts and figures "Pro
Bono Pubico' submits the following:
To the Gazette:
When your correspondent COM
m enced ventilating our railroad bond
subject, we congratulated ourselves
the true inwardness OF the whole mat
ter from a disinterested standpoint,
but unfortunately he fell into the
hands of the Phlistines yesterday and
gave only an ex-parte conclusion. His
head is so muddled by attorneys that
he concludes that if you pay one thou
sand dollars, which you deny owing,
you save all the interest that may ac-
crue until the suit is decided. To il
| lustrate: You have one thousand dol
lars in your pocket which some fellow
claims and sues you for. Now, YOU
correspondent says, If he gains the
suit and you have to pay with per
cent interest, that this interest is q
clear loss, although you could loan
! your one thousand dollars ut 10 per
cent. during the progress of the suit.
! Poor fellow. he needs ice to his head.
| Now, if we are to have rehash of
! this matter from an eEp0rte stand
! point, we can only eXclaim, in express
sive and elegant modern parlance,
! "Give us restn'
Pro BoNo PUBLICo.
! We desire to say that our facts and
| figures are obtained from the records
in this case, MT from PRO Bono Pub
! leo" just why the city council should
| place so lnuoh stress upon its contract
with the Central is toa "disinterested'
party difficult to see, for it compro-
missed with that company on the basis
hereinbefore stated, June lst, 1880; and
on March 4th, 1881, IL compromised
with Nelson Beall and wife, by which
it paid them cash $500, and
ia note, since paid, for
$3.50, for interest due on
coupons prior to 1850. 1t also paid on
the Wiley Jones bonds about $3.50 due
prior to 1889 and subsequent TO its
settlement with the Central. u also
paid Colonel John I. Flint about 800
interest due prior TO 1850, and after its
settlement with the Central, and If
that company is disposed to go back
on 1t for violation of its contract N has
ample grounds for sach action bGt
doubtless that cormorant, after having
placed the Sl0l,O00 stock iis
fes capacious NAV, is quite
| willing 60 LIT the city
severely alone ii it will but continue
to pay the interest as it falls due, on
the Bonds II holds, under its present
compromises with the city, and doubt
less II does not care how ii settles with
the other bondhoders. And we VEN
ture the assertion that Judge Walker
would be more than willing TO settle