National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-08-02
messrs. Clark and Mndigan Carry
Their Differences Into Court.

nIessrs. Clark and Mndigan Carry
Their Differences Into Court.
A few days ago THE REPUBLICAN, an
nounced that T.,J. Clark, trading as r. j.
Clark & Co., produce and commission
merchants, No. g16 Louisiana avenue,
had made an assignment to Mr.. Frank
j. Madigau for the benefit of his cred
itors. Mr.. Clark visited the Office, con-
tradicted tho statement, and was publicly
given the benefit of his denial Then
Mr.. Madigan called and insisted that the
original publication was correct, and
produced papers in proof Of tho assertion
that an assignment had been made to
him, and also he was allowed to make o
statement in print. The parties evidently
found that they could not settle the ques-
tion by newspaper statements, and have
now como into court.
Mr.. Henry w. Garnett, MS solicitor for
Mr.. Madigan, yesterday filed bill in
equity against Mr.. Clark and Margaret
Clark, his wife. lie says that on July 25
last Mr.. Clark, being insolvent, and hav-
ing laid his condition before meeting
OF his creditors, it was determined that
he should make an assignment for the
benefit of creditors of his stock of goods
and personal property, which ho did to
Mr.. Madigan. The lattor was to dispose
of the goods aud distribute the proceeds
for the benefit of creditors. The agree
ment was Joined in by Mrs Clark, who
conveyed all her interest in the property,
and the assignment was acknowledged
and thon delivered to Mr.. Madigan by
Mr.. Clark. Mr.. Madigan then took pos.
session of the store, informing Mr.. Clark
that he could keep control as clerk for
Al. I'D 4. To-, ..,
few days aud take an inventory of the
Madigan, at tho request of
Nh. Clark and his attorney,
for tho purpose of allowing it to be shown
TO certain creditors, permitted them to
take possession of the deed of assignment
and subsequently he was told that it was
In the possession of Mrs. Clark. The
deed was not returned. although DOMAIN
ded and Mrs. Clark has since informed
Mr.. Madigan that the deed has been des-
troyed or lost. 1t is further enlarged
that since Mr.. Clark secured the deed he
has again taken possession of the store,
placed his agents in charge and refused
to allow Mr.. Madigan to take possession.
Mr.. Madgau also states that he believes
that Clark has made away with quaint
ties Of goods from the store and is still
| engaged in doing so, thus defrauding the
assignee and creditors. Madigan there
| fore asks that Mr.. and Mrs Clark
be called upon to discover and deliver the
deed of assignment. and that Clark be
restrained from interfering with the as.
signee in taking possession of the stock
and performing his duty as assignee.
Upon the bill being submitted to Judge
| Wylie he granted u temporary restrain
ing order and made the Same returnable
next Monday.
Late yesterday afternoon the answer of
Mr.. Clark was put in by Mr.. Thomas +.
Miller, his solicitor. He denies that he
made the assignment. lie says that for
hSea ns s Sd s aaiS time last
year started branch house in Philadel-
phia, which, through acknowledgement of
the agent in charge, failed. An exami-
nation of his books advised him that his
aggregate indebtedness was $4,000. He
wanted to continue his business here. He
knew that a sale by an assignee would not
satisfy his creditors and would ruin him.
A meeting of his creditors was called
on July %, at which all those in this city
and representatives of those in Baltimore
and New York were present. He told
them his condition and asked an extern
sion of one year. Mr.. Msdigan acted
ostensibly as the defendant's friend.
Cook said that his purpose was to arrange
for q continuance of his business, and
that under no circumstances would he
consent to make an assignment by which
his stock and business would be sum.
Earily disposed of nor did his creditors
demand any such thing. 1t was finally
suggested that he make paper placing
the business in the name of Mr.. Madigan,
TO BIO conducted in his name, and the de-
PENDANT to have the management of 1t.
Out OF the net profits arising the creditors
who assented to tho agreement were to 10
paid, and those present said that ii
such an assignment was made they would
agree to take 80 per cent. of their claim
IL paid within one year. 1t was expressly
understood between all parties that the
defendant should have charge of the bust
n rs and account only to Mr.. Madigan for
me receipts. After the paper was executed
Mr. Nadigan and Clark obtained the con.
sent and signatures of several Of the
Washington creditors, and then the paper
was left with Clark's attorney until the
other creditors had signed it. On July
20 Clark took it to Baltimore to got tle
assent of the creditors there. Three firms
refused to ratiiy the acts Of their agents
at the meeting. Ho then determined to
revoke the assignment, and SO told Mr..
Madigan. He Immediately gave the paper
To his wife, and without his knowledge,
and under the impression that it
was no longer of use, she destroyed it.
At second meeting of his Washington
creditors, on July 30, he told them of his
failure to obtain the consent of the Balti-
more creditors, and that he was promised
money, out of which he could pay them
% per cent. of their indebtness, and he
would give them notes for % per cent.
payable in ono year. They all readily
consented to this arrangement. MIR.
niadigan claimed to represent Messrs.
William NJ. Gait Il Co., and took an active
interest, and explained to the parties why
the old arrangement could not BIO carried
into effect. Ho advised the proposed
scttlem ont, and himself drew the promis-
sorry otes to be executed by tho defend
ant. Mr., Clark says he has the legal
possession Of the store, and never de-
livered possession 10 Mr.. Madigan or any
one else. He denies that no is disposing
of the goods, and claims that tho paper
signed by him was Of no account owing
to the failure of the creditors to sign the
same, and he is conducting his business
us If no such paper ever existed.
Tho answer of the wife is almost du.
plicate of that of her husband.
WaghlnutOuS VS. MatrnnnIitnns TODAY