The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1884-08-14
THE CASE OF MOSES F. EIsEMAN.
A Hearing before Judge Wyile-Mr.
Eiseman Denies All the Charges
Against Him.


beer issued, was heard by Judge Wylic to-
day.
The statement printed in the Star yester-
day that Mr.. Eseman was arrested last
night on q writ of capais nd satisfaciendum
was incorrect.
Mr.. Eiseman has not been arrested, and
no capias could have been issued without
first obtaining q judgment against him.
The case came up to-day on motion Of
briner and A. c. Bradley, to quash the at
tachments against him.
The parties who procured the attach
ments are Stern Brothers s. Co., the Roscn-
| berg Manufacturing Company and Alfred
Benjamin & Co.
| Mr.. N. II. Miller appeared for tho plain
tifls, and asked q postponement of the
| cases.
| Mr.. Tobriner read She reasons for his mo-
tion to quash the attachments. These set
forth that the writs were informally is
sued, because the aflidavits upon which the
attachments were based are informal and
insufficient in law.
| The case Of Alfred Benjamin & Co.
| against tho defendant was elected to
be heard first. This is claim for
| $1037. Tho affidavit of Isaiah Joseph,
one of the members Of the firm, in support
| Of the attachment, sets forth that the de-
fendant has removed certain portions of his
stock with view Of cheating his creditors.
The affidavit of Sven Mcdonald for
mer employo Of Mr.. Eiseman's, was read
| aud stated he knew that Mr.. Eiseman had
removed certain goods from his store
In answer to these Mr.. Eisemau's afli-
6avit was read.
This denies in toto the charges of tho
complainant that he has tried to cheat his
creditors. Tho affidavit also states that
Mcdonald was dismissed from the employ
of the defendant for good and sufficient
reasons; that on the day he was discharged
he cursed the defendant and said he would
get even with him. The defendants affi-
davit states that his business has always
been conducted in a fair, business-like,
straightforward manner and that not only
has the defendant never removed any stock
from his store, but no one has ever done SO
for him.
Afiidavits wero also put in from tho
clerks in Mr.. Eiseman's house. These bear
Mr.. Eiseman out that McDonalds afii-
davit was made on account of n personal
trouble between himself and Mr.. Eiseman.
Judge Wylie-Mr. Miller, all your afli-
davits are denied.
Mr.. Miller said that that was the fact,
but he would like to have the case heard on
testimony. He said that some Of the aili-
davits made ia behaifof Mr. Eiseman were
made by the relatives of that gentleman.
He could, he said, show to the Court that
the most outrageous frauds had been com
mitted by the defendant. He did not
think tho attachments should be quashed
on eX parte aflidavits.
| Mr.. Miller cited authorities in support OF
his proposition to take evidence in the case.
Judge wyiie's Decision.
His Honor said that the attachment in
this case was founded upon the affidavit Of
one Of the plaintiffs, in which he states
that it is his (plaintiA's) belief-not his
knowledgc-that tho defendant has or Is
about to remove his goods from the Dis
trict, with view of defrauding the plaintiff.
For this affidavit TO hold good it was the
opinion OF His Honor that 1t should state
positively that he (the plaintiff) knew this
TO be fact.
The affidavit too, should have partcu-
larized the property taken away. 1t seemed
to him that if a man doing such business
as Mr.. Eiseman did, that If he removed his
goods some one would certainly have been
able to state the exact property removed
He thought 1t would be a great hardship
that any mans business should be broken
up merely on the affidavit of creditor
who stated that it was his belief that the
defendant had or was about to remove his
goods.
As 10 McDonaid's Affidavit
this did not particularize the property al
legged to have been removed. He did no,
swear when and what property was taken
His Honor thought it absolutely essential
that the afiidavits should have stated this
The aflidavits in support of that made by
Mr.. Eiseman also state positively that nc
goods have been removed, and he thought
1t would be queer proceeding where the
plaintiff is allowed the privilege of filing
atfdavits in support of his claim aud not
give the defendant the same privilege.
His Honor did not hesitate to say that
the preponderance of evidence was in favor
of the defendant.
Abiding to Mr. Miller's statement that
something ought to be done to stop the
attempts OF merchants to cheat their credit
ors, His Honor said; ave are no worse than
other communities"
HIS Honor said the law would not per
init the creditor to come down here on suct
afhdavits and break up mans business.
One Attachment Quashed.
, After going over the case at great lcngtl
His Honor said 1t was clearly not his dut,
to strain the law in favor of the creditor
, and he was satisfied that this attachmen
: ought not to be sustained aud he therefor
ordered 1t quashed.
Mr.. Miller said he would appeal from th
decision.
His Honor said the plaintiffs had th
| right of appeal, but that would not sto
the operation Of an order compelling then
/; to give y heavy bond, as they had seize
the entiro property of tho defendant.
/ Mr.. Miller asked that the other cases
0 those of the Rosenburg Manufacturing
+ Company, and Stein Brothers & Falk b
|, taken up.
i MIR. Bradley said the decision in the othe
/ case would dispose of these two.
a MIR. Miller claimed that the two case
0 were decidedly different from the first, a
I he would put in evidence an importan
athdavit OF Mr.. Rosenberg. This state
that two clerks in Mr.. Eisemans store
Messrs. Newmyer and Oppenheim, told til
}, atiiant that they would make affidavit tina
!, MI. Eiseman had not put any money i
!; bank for three months; that he had COZ
I; veTted his money into Government bond
!; and had packed some Of his better good
il away and had also shipped goods to Bait
p more with view Of cheating. The clerk
6 expressed willingness, the afiiant says,
swear to these facts.
= Mr.. Miller said tho conversation betwee
' Mr.. Rosenberg and the two clerks too
- place at his house, and he would mako
l. similar affidavit to that Of Rosenberg.
n The Court said that as the property {
). the defendant had been levied on and h
:. store closed up, he would fix
al