The Portland daily press., 1884-07-14

Ulo loI tnem anu mas deposited them IN the
Safety Deposit Vault, He has not assumed to
remove Mr.. Douglass from the office of agent,
but has notified six tenants that Mr.. Douglass
is not his agent, and has collected 81 200 from
four tenants occupying part of the property
which has been under his exclusive charge by
consent of all the trustees. 1t has been the
constant custom of each of the trustees to col
lect and receipt for the income of the estate
over their individual signatures, and no obiec-
tion has been made until recently. Respon-
dent has always been ready to consult and con-
fer with his associates, and has never bsen in
tentionally uncivil. No creditors or beneficial
res of the estate have suffered, and no serious
question concerning the administration of the
trust has arisen, except the recent question
concerning the joint deposit. There is copse-
quently no need OF the appointment of re-
ceiver.
JUDGE sYMoNDs's STATEMENT.
Judge Symonds opened the case in behalf of
the complainants. He said that Mr.. Rand was
the only lawyer on the board of trustees and
the other trustees looked to him as their legal
adviser Under his advice it was arranged at
the start of the management that the sons of
Mr.. Brown should receive the income of the
property, with the exception of the Clifford
trust which has been managed solely by Mr..
Rand, pay such current bills during the month
as there was no doubt or question about and at
the close of the month return to Mr.. Rand
full account of the receipts and disburse-
ments for his examination and approval and
pay over to him certain proportion which he
was to receive as one of the board. This
method continued up to January of the
present year ana during that time there was
no intimation from Mr.. Rand that there was
any illegality about it but ON the contrary it
was method adopted at his suggestion. In
February and March Mr.. Rand proposed to
change this and that he should receive the en-
tire income himself, deposit it in his own
self alone. OF course any such plan was at
once rejected by the other trustees as it was
their legal right to do.
The difficulties between Mr.. Rand and his
co-trustees began very early in the history of
the proceedings in regard to the payment of
some OF the requests, particularly that to the
Maine Missionary Society which in some way
had the disapprobation of Mr.. Rand and there
was such delay in the payment of 1t, such
treatment OF the agent and officers Of the
society by him as to cause the other trustees
great annoyance and shame that the admins
tration of the estate should be made the
means of such oppression and insolence to
those upon whom the bounty of the testator
was intended to be bestowed This is only
one OF many instances of that kind.
At t1e time of the liquidation of the &C
counts of the firm of j. B. Brown & Sons in
the Probate Court the accounts were prepared
by their bookkeeper with the utmost care and
accuracy and filed in the Probate Court, and
there being no o5jec ion Mr.. PhilipIBrown SUP.
posing the matter was adjusted and at an end
went to Europe. During his absence he re-
ceived notice, coming from Mr.. Rand, that
Mr.. Rand claimed from him and from his
brother $4,000. belonging to the estate and
not accounted for. On his return, Mr.. Rand
was 80 and positive violent in urging
this claim, that the sum of $4,000
was paid over to him under protest,
for the sake of peace, to be returned if
the claim was not sustained. After infinite
labor in the examination of the accounts and
the most constant annoyance and distrust and
the most open insults from Mr. Rand as to
their incompetency and the incompetency of
their bookkeeper and after their books had
been examined by one of the most expert
bookkeepers in the city and pronounced COR
rect still Mr. Rand insisted that they were not
and that his theory was correct, and not only
insisted on it but with insult and abuse in his
manner of doing it. Finally the matter was
left ia Mr.. Francis X. Swan who examined the
accounts and pronounced them perfectly cor
rect and Mr.. Rand entirely at fault and ex-
hibiting great lack of knowledge in the
methods of bookkeeping.
AuO puullC dCCOuHtS W0E0 1eIb Dy Mr. Rand
at his own request on the ground that he was
familiar with that method of keeping accounts.
He made up his account to the close of 1888.
and the other trustees examined it and found
it apparently correct. Subsequently Mr. Rand
claimed that there was an error of $4,000;
that there should be $4,000 more cash on
hand, and Notwithstanding the error of $54, 600
made by him the year before, he was equally
certain this time there was no error on his part
and in the same violent and insulting way he
at different times, in presence of Others called
upon the complainants to make it good This
involved again full and thorough examine
ton of their accounts, going back for long
period, and caused them a great deal of vex-
alton and trouble. After long and careful
enquiry it appeared that Mr.. Rand himself had
sold the Richardson wharf property for $50, 900,
taken notes for 1t, which he held with the col
latera security, and these notes had been
omitted by him from his account
And Notwithstanding this was the second
error on his part, and notwithstanding il SUBJ
jected these parties to infinite annoyance and
distrust to have such a charge made against
them, notwithstanding it was due in each in
stance to the fault and blunder of Mr. Rand.
still there was never the slightest expression of
regret on his part for the insults or for the
groundless charges he had made upen them,
The other trustees thereupon took legal advice
for the first time, and were advised that the
arrangement suggested by Mr.. Rand was loose
and improper; that the income of the estate
should be deposited subject to the joint order of
at least two OF the trustees; and an account
was accordingly opened at the First National
Bank. Mr.. Rand refused to recognize that ac-
count He would not sign checks upon it, The
agent, Mr.. Douglass, as instructed by major
ity of the trustees paid his collections into that
account. Mr.. Rand then notified tenants in
effect not to pay rent to Mr.. Douglass. He
collected himself portion of the rents falling
due this month. In March he cut the coupons
falling due in April from securities in the
Safe Deposit vault, and subsequently removed
the coupons for two years in advance and car
ried them away. These acts indicate pur-
pose to exclude his associates from their au-
thorlty. His subsequent notice to the tenants
has the same character and tendency. The
compliments are responsible for funds and
property which have disappeared and are be-
yond their control. The sum of 1875 900 is now
locked up in the First National Bank and can
not be used because Mr.. Rand refuses to sim
the checks. Creditors are consequently delay
ed in receiving their dues, though the money is
waiting for them, and the compliments find
themselves not only exposed to intolerable an
noyance in the execution of their trust, but ac-
tually prevented, without the aid of the court,
from discharging their duty.
THE COURT SUGGESTS A SETTLEMENT.
The court, at this point, asked whether an
order would not cover the case, directing the
trustees to deposit all money now on hand or
hereafter received, subject to the order of two
OF the trustees, as required by the will. Judge
Haskell said that he felt difficulty about ap.
pointing receiver for portion of the estate,
and supposed that the petitioners did not de-
sire, as they had not asked, the appointment
of a receiver for the entire property.
Mr.. Rand said that the order proposed by
the court would be satisfactory to him.
Mr.. Putnam said he should be unable to
answer that question at once, but would con-
suit with his clients.
The hearing was then adjourned until 8 pm.
At the coming in of the court in the after
noon, the counsel for the compliments said
they had concluded to adopt the suggestions of
the court, and had restraining order drawn
which, if signed by the court, would be salts
factory to them for the present. Mr.. Rand
said that the order would be satisfactory to him /;
thereupon the motion for receiver and an in
junction was dismissed without prejudice, aud
the following order was ordered to be entered
of record.
THE ORDER OF COURT.
Ordered, That until further order of court,