Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-06-27

The case of T. c. Crawford against ]. H. scuier
and his assignee, j. B. Smith, for an Injunction and
| the appointment OF a receiver, was before Judge
COX, In the Equity Court, this morning-Messrs-
| Cook and Cole for complainants, Messrs. Allen
| Rutherford and r. D. Mussey for Squier, Judge
Shellabarger for the assignee, and Mr.. n. Wilson
Tor District Commissioner Edmonda Mr.. SQuier
and number OF his creditors were present Mr..
Squier's answer was read denying the allegations
In the amended bill. He denied every charge OF
fraud or attempted fraud, and asserted that the
assignment was made equally for the protection Of
the creditors
MI. j. B. Smith, the assignee In his answer said
that at the time OF the assignment there was but
500 In the bank. He denied that Squier any one
had taken away or suppressed anything OF the
assets He states that he is unable to give the
amount OF liabilities, because he does not know
.ne amount OF Squier's paper out He denies that
ne IS under the control and influence OF SQuier, or
that the assignment is virtually an assignment to
squler himself. He admits that he has received no
peAeVes that q correct account can be made.
MR. EDMoNDs RELATIONS WITH sou1ER
Mr. Smiths answer further states in regard to
the averment that squier had silent partner
some responsible person. "that this respondent has
no knowledge in regard to said matter except that
ne Is informed and believes that James B. Edmonds,
OF the city Of Washington and District OF Column
Ola, was at the time OF and before the said assign
ment under contract relation with the said SQuier
Wnlcn relation was from time to time evidenced by
several written contracts between said Edmonds
and said SQuter. Respondent is not able to give q
copy OF the said contract now in force lie re-
quested said Edmonds to permit respondent since
the assignment was made to see the contract but
the said Edmonds did not furnish such Inspection
ment was made, to wit: on the 9TH day OF June
1884, ana Tor several years before that time said
squier and Edmonds. the substance OF which was as
respondent can state, as Ows:-That the said
Edmonds would and did furnish money to the said
Squler, the amount whereof respondent cannot
aver, LOT which note or notes were given TO the
s:lG Edm0ndS. and 1t was agreed by said writings
Ina. SAD sqgies would buy pay vouchers at such
these vouchers should be delivered from time to
time to the said Edmonds, and that there should
due. upon his delivering TO said Edmonds other
vouchers OF equivalent amount and like kind with
those surrendered for collection; and that in the
settlement OF the said matters relating to the said
vouchers, as purchased under the said written
Tracts, the said SQuer should pay to the said Ed
monds the principal sum by him advanced and ev-
interest on said principal at the rate Of one and
one-haf per cent per month. In view OF the matters
the said J. II. SQuier, respondent believes and
charges that respondent, as assignee, and the
interest In ali vouchers purchased under said con-
tracts: and are entitled to have accounting in
regard thereto and AYERS and charges that the said
Edmonds Is proper and necessary party In this
case Respondent Is informed and charges that q
large amount OF vouchers OF the kind called for and
described In said written contracts between the
said EdlnondS and said j. H. SQuier, and which
were purchased by said SQuier pursuant to said
written contracts, are now in the safe claimed by
said Edmonds as private property, and which is in
the said banking room on Pennsylvania avenue, in
this city; and the respondent AYERS and charges
that the said vouchers ought, under the order
OF the court to be placed In the possession of this
respondent and assignee. for the purpose OF taking
said account and for the purpose Of securing any
interest which said creditors may be found, under
the direction and order OF the court to have in the
same. Respondent has not since said assignment
was made, nor at any time, had access to said
vouchers SO kept by said Edmonds in said safe
claimed by him: and respondent has not the COM
binaton OF the lock OF the safe and never had It.
The reading OF this part OF the answer caused Q
sensation in court.
The counsel then proceeded to argue the case
The court took the papers, and viii announce its
decision tomorrow,