Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-04-16
MIR. EDMONDS AND MR.. SQUIER.
An Old Agreement which Was Torn Up
by Mr.. SQuieF.
EVIDENCE OFFERED TO SHOW THAT THE DIS
TRICT COMMISSIONER WAS A PARTNER AND
NOT CREDITOR OF soUIKR.

NOT CREDITOR OF soUIKR.
The testimony in the suit begun by the re-
ceiver of Squier Co., against District Commits
sioner Edmonds has been filed. A new feature
In the case has been introduced for the purpose
of proving partnership between Messrs. Ed
monds and Squier of an agreement alleged to
have been made between them September /,
1880. Mr.. Jay B. Smith, who was Mr.. SQuiers'
clerk and assignee, testified that after the as
signment Mr.. Squier took this paper and tore it
up, saying that it was an old agreement and
that he and Mr.. EdmOnds were then working
under new one. After Mr.. Squier had gone,
Mr.. Smith says he gathered up the pieces, and
subsequently pasted them together; This
agreement set forth that Mr.. Edmonds had de-
Hvered S34. 900 to Squier for investment in the
of pay 50 long such invest
cent or more. Mr.. Edmonds was to keep pos
session of the vouchers "and" the investment
safe in said Squiers' banking house free of
charge, and said Edmonds out of the profits
shall receive one and one-half per centum at
said Squier shall enjoy the rest of the profits"
Squ1er Is to transact all the business and re-
ceive the vouchers for collection as they ma
ture upon delivering Others similar in kind
and amount and payment to Mr.. Edmonds
"his said share Of profits at the end of each
in such payment or delivery of other vouchers,
said Edmonds may collect same" Provision is
made for terminating the contract by three
ther guaranty Of the investment and indemnity
against loss, the agreement sets out that Mr.:
squier gives q Mr.. Edmonds promissory note Of
the same date as the agreement.
The testimony of DR.. Schaeffer, the micro
scopist, was also introduced by plaintiff, to the
copy of which was produced in evidence by
Mr.. Edmonds, had been changed and inter
lined; that the corrections had been written in
dif1erent kinds of ink from the original, and at
different times. These changes consist in SUBJ
stituting the word "profit" for "interest"
"Squier & Co." for "Squier."
Other testimony was offered to maintain that
partnership relation existed between Messrs
Edmonds and s94ier, such as showing that pay
"dividends," and Mi. Edmonds receipted for
"dividends."
Mr.. Edmonds accounted for the difference in
INK IN the August agreement by stating that
he drew up the paper at his own office and took
1t to Mr.. SQuiers' office, where 1t was corrected
and signed. subsequently it was brought by
corrections We're made. Mr.. Edmonds said he
kept no books but a small pocket diary; that
part of the money he advanced belonged to
other parties-some to his brother, some to his
wife, and some to his wifes sister. He borrowed
money at per cent from his sister-in-law, his
brotherin-law and his brothers, and received
10 per cent from Squier. He reiterated his YER
sion of his business relations with Squier as set
out in his answer filed in court. In the course
not paid any personal tax because he had not
been called upon, and that he was living in
w aSnlnStOn largely 1Or the sake Oh his health.
WHAT MR.. EDMONDS SAYS.
Commissioner Edmonds to-day, in reply to
STAR reporters questions concerning the
publication In a morning paper in reference to
the foregoing, said that he had only glanced
his eyes over the article, and found 1t garbled
statement, which gave no idea of the case as it
really is AS to the agreement, he said there
were several Of them from time to time as all
sums he received over ten per cent interest had
to be credited on the principal of the notes, and
whenever such settlement was made there was
a new note given and a new memorandum ex-
ecuted to go with it. Originally there was no
written agreement, but only Squier's notes and
the securities delivered Herewith. But when
1t was necessary to send the securities away for
collection, there was an agreement with regard
to what was to be done with the money COL
lected. In relation to the torn "agreement" {"
produced by Mr.. Smith, he said that it never
existed as an agreement 1t was drawn for one,
but was found to have been not Quite what was
intended, and was cast aside, and, as he sup
posed, destroyed. There were several agree
ments, one following and superseding the other,
as settlements were made. All the evidence in
the case is now in the court. Mr.. Edmonds
added that he had simply lost money, as q good
many others had, only he had partial security,
as many Others had not. Much of the security
he had he has found to be worthless, so that his
loss will amount to several thousand dollars.