National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-08-16
MIR. WHITE HOLDS THE FUND.
A New York Man VINO Knew How

pay ON discontinued mail route has. after |
FIVE years litigation, returned to tho
equity court. 1t has in the meantime
acquired now life, which is likely to pro.
long contest, which whom finished may
DO found 20 have eaten up the ontiro
fund. In March, 1879 Robert f.. Doyle
and John Il. Doyle filed bill in equity
against George II. Giddings, of this city;
stephen V. White, u New York spocu
lator, and William ID. Hartman, praying
for restraining order against all of tho
defendants, excepting Hartman, from coll
lecting of the government certain moneys
appropriated by congress for an account,
the appointment Of q receiver and distri-
button.
The bill rs fled showed that congress
in March, 1879, made an appropriation OF
1i,5S3.3 SO to pay George II. Giddings ono
months extra pay on the discontinuance
of u portion of mail route No. 6076. from
San Antonio, Texas, 20 San Diego, Cali
fornia. 1t was claimed that this money
belonged only to tho Doyles Tho route
was established prior TO 1867, and James
Il. Birch entered into contract with tho
government to carry tho mail subsc-
quently he died, and his legal representa-
tives entered into an arrangement with
| bho ubptItHltub WntTbDI anu
| Robert Il. Doyle became proprietors Of
the contract, onc-third of tho proceeds to
| 20 TO the former and two-thirds to tho
latter. Afterward IL was agreed that
John 7. Doyle should be admitted to the
partnership, and his interest come out Of
the two-thirds interest On the 3lst of
May, 1861, tho service was discontinued
between San Antonio and FL Paso, and
four months later on the residue Of tho
route. At this time, according to tho
terms Of the contract, there became duo
the oopartnership $4,000 rs extra pay for
ono month. Application was made for IL,
but the department refused TO allow IT,,
except $l0,4l6.G7 for tho part of the route
between III Paso and San Diego, which
the contractors refused to accept as pay
ment in full. In February, 1867, for the
purpose Of settling tho copartncrship
business, an assignment was made to
William ID. Hartman as trustee. IL was
claimed that, in violation of this trust,
Giddings, through another party and
without the knowledge or consent of his
former partners or the trustee, in August,
1867, collected from the postotfice depart
ment $l0.410.G7. which with the Sl4, 1888
appropriated by congress, made the bal
ance of the $4,000 due. On October 8
1877, Giddings executed power Of attor-
ney to White to collect this balance Of
$i4,5S3.33, and subsequently, assigned the
whole amount to him. By supple.
mental bill filed in May, 1879, 1t wa
alleged that White was in this district
when the original bill was filed for thu
purpose of removing the money beyond
the Jurisdiction Of tho court. aud wher
he learned that the marshal held pro
cess for him he concealed himself +
| ayaIn unryioa nd off thu did
trict, Sinc6 that time it was said tina
both he and Giddings had been trying t,
secure the money and urging the sixth
auditor Of tho treasury, through tho post
, master general, to have tho requisitioi
, made out in the favor of Gliding
I and forwarded to tho treasury to enabl
White toIcollect 1t. The sixth auditor di
finally report In favor of Giddings, an
,, tho compliments said that unless re
ceiver was appointed, for which they
prayed, the money would be paid
!; White and get beyond the jurisdiction ,
1 the court. Giddings In his answers mad
denial of the charges and claimed thu
the contracts with the Doyles gave thel
only IN interest in tho net profit
White failed to answer. The cause pr,
ceeded through its intricate channel, b,
Y set by annoying delays. White and Gid
!. until April TO- 1888, when Justice Ma
!. Arthur made an order directing Giddini
" and White to pay tho $l4,5S3.33 wit
interest from July, 90, 1870, TO ii
o trustee. This was not done. Subs,
, quently, on March 25, 1884, they we
both cited for contempt in disobeying u
u restraining order of the court. Viii
g admitted receiving the money, and sal
o that he did so in good faith, as the dra
belonged to him, and there was no motif
served upon him OF the restraining orde
Tho court discharged the rule upon Il
y hearing, aud White was dismissed.
4 Subsequently the compliments filed
J. petition for leave to file an amend,
s. and supplemental bill, which, aft
/ strong resistance, was granted by Justi
b James, in April last, and then 9th
interlocutory orders followed. Tho me
important was motion of the complai
ants to compel White to bring the 81.
es 5S3.33 into court, which was heard al
ID overruled on the 24th Of last June. t
10 latest was the demurrer Of White to /
of supplemental bill, which also was owe
ruled on July last, and he was Civ
v twenty days in which to answer.
OF White filed the answer yesterday.
" IL no denies collecting tho appropriate
IL to defrsud the plaintiffs, and asserts I'll
X John Il. Doyle was not interested in t
p contract in any way. He then refers
It. the conveyance made to the trustee, o.
rs claims that the plaintiffs cannot mainta
r any action for any thing so convey
h and that tho trustee has appeared
claimant for the money. He admits
ceiving tho money in 1879 for value pi
to Giddings, and says that congress ma
the appropriation to him, and that it "
OF tho expression of the legislative bran
le, of tho government of sovereign gra
o. which the judicial branch Of tho Cover
a ment can neither annul nor dehe
ID Giddings had the constitutional right
y receive and collect the draft, o.
lo any attempted restriction upon {
et exercise of that right on tho p,
%; of the court would, If enforced, rend
OF void the legislative enactment.sb
"a, White. also says that he bought the dr.
u, In open market without the knowlet
hu of any adverse interest, and until Ap
2S, 1884, he says that no demand v
in ever made for the money, now did
promise to pay it, and he pleads
m statue Of Limitation as u bar to any
an covery. He refers to the hearing had
Cd another cause. in April, 1883, when o
or these facts were brought out, and the ,
es, cree which was rendered against him v
nd set aside in the bill of review. Accol
ng ing to the usage of chancery practice
re says the plaintiffs, by proceeding to TT
to and taking final decree In the premis
re precluded themselves from another II
ms upon facts known to them to exist at I
first trial, and he relies on such action
Of them AZ bar to any recovery.
adj further claims that the matter sought
in be investigated and corrected have
NO ready boon fully adjusted by the court
10. Tho case will now in all probability
yn in condition to BIO heard at tho next TO
tle of tho court and tho ownership of
,ro money decided.
III Married u Gum.
~ Chicago NcHs,
10 Mr.. Thomas A. Hendricks was no