The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1884-08-09

ground for the attachment Wa- that
he (Aldricn) had understood that
ilinchman had transferred SECOND in
insurance policir, to Waco state Bank
for security of debts due the bank and
to secure the bank in making advances
to pay his (lIinchuan paper, "A, il
should mature Herring told him
that was the purpo-c. Graham dit
not ndvi>c him To bring the attach
ncnt but only drew up the blank and
Aldrich filled up the inI-rhood. ~
to the protested note. how did il 90 to
protest? IIinchnan explained that.
The note was refused acceptance be
cause the time was not correct. and
that " hen il came back correct il WH~
accepted and paid before due. II ru-
NOR told him IIinchman paper had
been protested. why did lac not 90 Ia
the bank Ia enquire. lie had heard
rumor, that IIinrhman had burned
hi, warehouse. that H. paper had
zone to protest. and Insurance poll
cics had been placed in the bank to
secure partly the bank and partly
other securities Were these grounds
of attachment;
The bank referred him 10 IIinrh-
man, why did he not 90 to lInchmam.
1t hat been proved 10y ". W. ~clcN
that every dollar that IIiuchman had
drawn from his bank has been applied
to paving hi, debts ~ they came due,
aud has paid since the lire Slj.j26.5i
over hi, Indebtedness to the bank. The
contract with the bank agrees that ON
dcpo-itinp insurance policies the bank
would ndNanc" him money To pay his
paper H. ii maturrd. Wa- that WRONG:
, when Nldrich first went to iIiuchman.
| Iiinchmau told him otthat agrccHr"t.
/ and Aldrich don't deny it, hut hr l.
malicious. he didn't want to believe.
! llinchmnn told him that he had mndc
arrangements to pay hilu his H'bI
when it was due, and il was paid he
fore the attachment. Has il hccn
proved that lIincliuIan was unable to
pnN his debts II has not. SclrN tc>-
tilted that IIinchman had paid all hi-
debts. The suit was brought through
the mnliciolIanc,~ of Aldrirh; he knew
hc lied when he SWorC ont the attach.
mcnt. What j. the proof about chang
inc the windows in the warehouse:
That hr did II to protect his building
against tire al the instance "l an m
-urnncr agent VII" hrld S-hooo m
Surancr ON the house ana goods. Ii'
put III NiuhlI doors p"rhlN' the ialS'
doors would not shut; the insurance
men did not object. II wa, reported
that So thoroughly was lh' uniting
lihru WIN sh'"'-lr"h llla' ilr'll'h ''UIu
not break IN, ana yet there were uo"r-
not required 10 h' covered Wlth Nh'',
IRON MAJ c"ulu nave hrrh hr"h'h N''h
h" INST or root Aldtl'l knew 'ha'
the policies III the nahk were 10 pay
i'lhchlnhli urht,' iiii'cll''ail 'oI" MN
he showed ms books To- maj cHrc'
lark VIII ten You tiat II Nldrlch pc
lirved II was ground "l attachment
This - NOT law; must haN' lad ha'
reasonable ground of belief Ihi-
malicious prosecution was started for
the purpose of destroying llinchnnn :
credit, and it might have been done
bun for this trial of perjury. What
were the motives of the Murray not,
trouble. Adrich tried to Windlt
IInchmnn out of those notes. and
llinchman refuses 10 deliver them and
USES violent language Was that >uili-
cicnt to Justify an attachment II,
did not bring il To secure the debt. tuI
he had been offered security lie was
offered his goods back. He was OF
tercd farmers paper endorsed 10y H.
Did he want II settlement or security