Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-08-14
The Eisesnan Case.

ARGCrSG on NOTIONS TO QuAsH TIE ArrAcBxF>srs
Motions to Quash Attachment writS were argued
this morning before Judge wylie, In chambers.
in the suits or Stern BrotheV Falk the Rosen-
berg Manufacturing company, and Alfred BenJa-
min Co against NJ. ElseInsn, OF the clothing
house under ODD Fellows hall, to recover 81 lss IS
$3.50, and 81 ,9s7.4o, respectively. Mr. " H. NIlier
appeared for the plaintiffs and MessrS A. c. Brad
ley and Leon roorfner. for the defendant
The case OF Benjamin s Co. was first taken up
and the af1davits OF A. Josephi. Sween Mcdonald
and GeorSe ID. Benjamin were read as 10 the re-
noyal OF goods by EsemGn-
ny Toonner read tie AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. FiSema n
denying the changes and ayerr1llg that NCDGaa!a'S
anidayit Is the RESULT OF spite; that the bill WAS
purchased on credit OF four month ana not due.
Inc afHdayitS OF X. LANCER, l. Newusycr, Horace
Clark. and David +. Eisenan, supporting that OF
Mr. Eisemsn were also read.
A desuitory discussion then occurred as TO whether
the motions could be distos-i OF hv ailidayils
Without the taking 81 testimony. The couFt re
marked that The sfndavits or the conplainants
Prspared TO SHOW that the defendant had been
guilty OF fraud.
Mr. Miller also cited several authorities.
THIS COURT SAID
the statute seemed 10 require Il positive affidavit,
and the AFFIDAVIT in this containe. the clause
ION Information and belief !. the goods had been
removed somebody must know II, and IT should ~
stated positively. Ii was Z great harGsnip tu ow
crediter t6elose up business b. ming an AFFIDAVIT
ION Information and hpFI.
Nj. Miller AZ this point said Mcdonald had sworn
positively that goods had been removed. ..ua read
The same.
The court then resd the section. Saving faa. IN,
aHdaSlt must DC POSITIVE. ana thai * ~lauA .'
supported by the testimony al one or f.prr W.
nesSeS Tho court continued ma The gf.d Slt~ rr
the plaililll weT' d,n fcut. and II they Nu.s not
de'lclent the sfii.N1,s iUT az cal-Gf Lee IliIl.
Thcre Is some CD.Aatlcn oI the vendor v ht.l M
sells goods, and he sncuil lt1N TO Tie iy~UO st.y
OF the purchaser. When A.C,IS are al. lI,.I.l tn,y
become the property OF tlr AIgA.-rr. aha -tacTrd-
itCr cannot seize thsin unit. he obtain, h judy
ment OF until be sees dishonesty, ia n.ca cas-. ~
may ask for an attachment, but he must b. Ip'
tive. Not 1!e an afndayft Gu "lniOrnation and ue-
lief" He would qulsh the attachment IN tuat
case.
Mr. Miller noted AN appeal, and asked that tie
amount OF the bond b. fined. They were prepared
TO give bond equal to the amoGnt of tue apprlise-
meht, f6, GO.
The court, asking al TO the other cases. Mr..
Bradley said the decision had practically disposed
or them
Alter some discussion as to the attachments Mr..
Gaes was called Ia ard explained Jhat Ire lew
maze Alo schedule Lied III lie nraG case. md tie
leys Ia the other cases Were SutJsctto tie Lrst.
Ibe co3rt Said be would Quash the attachdI"ntS
and X he appeal bonds Ut s. 40 sl.l0J and S2,u0
respectively, sa6 give twenty Gays which 10 iif
thenl Ia cass TIE apo Ia are not perfected within
that time, MI, ElssInan vii regain possession OF
his stock, and 4 they are perfected, Iuc marshal
continues IN possession.
Mr.. Elsema-i not arrested yesterday on 4
cap!as as stated In TIE STAR, thrOu. u error, -
the Mi1tS served were simple attachments IN SUNS
begun yesterday.