Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-09-24
Congressman Kellogg RenOminated.
Ex-Governor Kellogg, who is now in this city, re-

PLAQUEMINE, La, September o. 1SS4-This COM
mittee, on behalf OF the republican congressional
convention OF the third district tenders you It's
unanimous nomination for the Forty-ninth Con-
gress, and pledges you large increased majority
chairman; ]. g. Davidson, T. a Cage, F. IL Tucker
p Landry, committee
Mr. Kellogg telegrapned acceptance and thanks
Rule to Declare a Sale Of Real Estate
Void.
PETITION OF oUTERBRDGE HoRsEY IN THE cHAP1N-
LOUGHERY CASE.
To-day in the case Of Ida B. Chaplin ct al agt W.
s. Loughery ct al, bill for partition of real estate
Outer0r1dge Horsey, recently made party, filed q
petition, by Messrs Crittenden Mackey, for q
rule on w. s. Loughery, B. F. Beverage, L To-
briner and Zach TObriner to show cause why the
sale made In this case should not be declared void.
The petition sets forth that the real estate was
originally the property Of Amanda F. Beveridge;
that Loughery claims to be the owner OF Bever-
1dges one-th1rd interest, purchased at marshars
SAFE lOr $l0; that petitioner Is judgment creditor
Of Beveridge; that July 5th a decree for sale was
mace, appointing l. Tobriner and w. Blair trus-
tees, who sold the property July oath for $500;
that on appearing before the auditor petitioner
CANNED that the execution sale under which
Loughery claims was fraudulent and void and made
with the collusiOn OF Beveridge and Loughery and
Tobriner for the purpose OF defrauding the cred
ltors OF b +. Bever1dge; that he through TObriner
attempted to obtain settlement Of the judgment
with petitioner at less than its value, but pet1-
toner refused to accept less than the full amount;
that the parties owning judgment amounting,
"iVA AuUCICoU, W $SU. LII New 1OTk, WeTc QuQleu
up, and on March ~, 1884, lacking one day OF 12
years and mouths Of the issuance Of the last Il.
Ia on the Judgment, said L. TObriner, attorney
Ior BeVerldge, caused his appearance TO be entered
as attorney for plaintiff, and ordered a II. ia.
issued against his client Beveridge, and said writ
was served by being made in the interest OF his
ciaht, ana the property was appraised at s., 800;
Cnat on May 9Th Beveridge's interest was sold on
the courthouse steps by the marshal to Loughery
for 500, and after the costs OF sale had been de-
Quoted the sum OF 500 was paid L. Tobriner, who
caused the same to be credited on the Judgment
that afterwards the marshal gave Loughery deed
property; that eighteen days thereafter Loughery
executed to 2. Tobrtner a note for 1925. and con-
Veyed the property to L. Tobrlner to secure the
note. He states that no money was loaned by T.
TObriner, but 1t was arranged that the property
Should be held to secure the counsel fees claimed
by his son; that on June 23d the bill was filed for
partition, and l. Tobriner entered his appearance
for Loughery and Beveridge, and prepared the an
swer OF the former In which the allegations OF the bill
were admitted, including the sacrifice OF over $500
worth OF property for 500. The petitioner says he
auditor, and OF having an opportunity to cross-ex-
anime LOughery, Bever1dge and L. and z. To-
briner without being bound by their testimony,
as TO their transactions, and asks the court
on the question OF the fnvalidity Of the sale, &C
The petition, however, Is not sworn to.
WHAT Mr.. ToBRINER SAYS.
Mr.. TObriner, the counsel, stated on reading the
petition that there is truth in any Of the charges
made in It, that it is not to- and that it is in
fact, an attempt to blackma1 that 1t is ridiculous
that he should have taken note in his fathers
name for fees when he could do so without any i'm
proprlety In his own name. He had appeared in
the case as an attorney, and everything he had
done In the case was open to inquiry, but he did
not propose to have charges OF that nature brought
against MIN without some foundation upon which
the court could take action; it required more than
an unSWOrn allegation.