The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-05-15

He had been informed Dhftltlt oHrIdu
10 walk there and had beer told 70 smut
up his Cd Did mouth. kustrah'e dellv
In returning from Bulen waa becluse his
companion met some friends there aud got
drunk. When ha did return with the news
and Einderman and Noross, Melville ives
aroused 10 activity, but ALAS Il was too late.
Belongs party bad kept signal fires burn
ing, which could have been seen for twenty
AVG or thirty miles. aud witness ssid lie
had heard belong had continually er'
pressed aurprlss ut not being rescueo.
Tho chief cause OF the loss OF DsLong'5
party was dOu niless bis devotion To his on
and his refusal TO leave the rest OF them
behind. Thia caused slowprosress.
That Bank Failure.
NEw YopK, May Stu consideration of
the sum OF 1900 coo U. s. Grant,
IT,, hae conveyed TO his isther-in-law,
Jerome B Chsfrs property on the north
side Of Seventy-third street ana also en-
sixty-third street. Ferdiuard Ward has
sold 10 w. 8. Warren the building aud
property on the site Of the old Boolh thea-
tire for S2S5 900,
Mr.. Davies, The assignee Of the firm OF
Grant d Wa d and OF It's Individual psrs-
pers, ia reply to queeticnsa as to the amount
and. character OF lis assets, ssid that
having only jut taken POSSESSION
he WAS unable to say whsi they wee 1
shall go 10 work immediately" he SAID,
Uto ascertain the condition Of affairs, bat
do not think L tbsn be IN position TO
make statement before Saturday," Mr..
James McNamee, the assignee OF the young
member OF the Grant family, made SINH
lar statement. When asked how these gen
tlemen who were not pembere oil the hrn
became involved, Mr.. MoNamee sad
he presumed their relations WIN
the firm were go intimate in that way that
they could hardly help being Involved IN
the general wrecg. General Grants name
is signed In clear, bold hand 70 the oocu'
meuts of assignment. MIR. w. @. Smiths
name Is not among the persons making
the assignments, although he 10 re-
garded as one Of the partners OF the hrm.
He has had to bear the brunt OF the pusi.
ness eiDce the doors were closed, snd ID toe
only person accessible TO callers. lie. seiu
!. Yesterday to q reporter: "Che assignee
hos been in possession Tor come
\ tine and wa rholl ct once get to WORK snc
) ascertain exsctly how We STAND, AS 70
this matter # the securities, think IT Will
be settled satisfactory. The Erie railroad
{ viii take care OF sill lis bonds and stocks
!. which we're placed with the firm TO dispose
Of, The New York, Chicago d st. Louis
/. railroad company will do the same. Cen
!. eral Grant was Of his office for o few hours
in the middle OF the day and
left al about O'Clock. BetWsen
land 2 he bad o cons altatoa with hotcoe
Conkling, who, it is reported, will act 49,
his adviser In these difficulties Fred
Grant was elso present. Both the general
and his son declined making any statement
a meeting OF the executive COMMITTEES oil
the New York, Lake Erie d Western rail-
road was held to-day, TO consider the rela-
tions oil the company and Grant o. Ward.
subcommittee was appointed tolook after
the mites and securities OF the .oompapy
pleced 10 tie firms charge, the hrm
negotiated considerable sums OF Erie paper
and held So 800, 0O0 securities. This extent
OF advances made to the company 10 ssid to
have been about $l,OO0C00, and the com
pany wishes to project the remaining col,
lateral. An enormous amount Of unsecured
Iiabilities of the firm of Grant &c Ward ex.
lists. comprising notes and simple receipts
for money received tor speculation. L. 10
stated on good authority, that
there are outstanding nearly 81
GOO 600 OF unsecured obligations
OF the firm held between two individuals.
It is said liabilities of this ch o MI, MI
amount In all to about So 600 0J0 The
Tribune says: Not only are they Grant d
Ward knownto TO. have re.hypotnecated secur,
lilies lodged with them as loans by several
railroads, but they hsve obtained larger ad-
Yances on come OF these collsteral5 than
the amounts they had advanced. The best
information now p0fs n th neH gross repll,tiss
6b LOU HUN p1V,OVOfooOsafAsN
can be made of assets exclusive OF loans
thew made on securities they have 70.
pledged.
HiIl..Sharon.
SAN FRANCISCO, Msy SIN the Sharon
divorce suit to-day there were startilsg
\ and uuexpeated developments. Mrs. Mar
thu Wilson (cOlored) who has testified in be.
half Of plaintiff, Miss Hill, that she had
seen the marriage contract In 1880, and
when on the stand recognized the doca.
ment produced as the same, acknowledged
to-day, when called by the defense, that che
had periured herself and that she had never
seen the document until shown her by Miss
Hill q short time before the trial opened.
She saws Miss Hill promised to pay her
IS 600 to swear she had seen the contract in
1880, She agreed to do 30, and did. Her
husband. after reading the contract, also
agreed to swear he saw 1t the same year.
he was to receive $1,000 additional. Wit.
ness said Miss Hill, Miss Bracket and Mrs.
Snow (colored) were together at Miss Hiirs
when the agreement was entered into to
testify falsely to the marriage contract.
Cross. she said she had only testi.
\ find previously what Miss Hill had In
structed her. She did not know she was
committing perjury. Closely cross-ques--
I fioned Witness became confused and could
not recall the date when she had the meet.
ing with plaintiff.
- The shipping Bill.
49, 10 -