Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-26
GALLEGp- MILLS CASE.
ANSWER or THE RECETTER,

] ae lrCSifcis 9cctSiuag Pte~SN AN eeO
hands OF Judge Ilolladay his answer,
setting forth =. that he never sought the
position, and for any personal advantage
TO himself 10 be derived from the office
he feels no concern. lie was, before
this suit was brought, one of the credi-
tors of the defendant company, holding
large amount OF the bonds outstanding
under the first deed Of trust. Consul
tation was held between himself and
other creditors, representing about
thlrty-six thirty-sevenths Of the en-
tire debt secured by said deed,
and representing very large
amount, at least, he believes
q majority Of the debt secured by the
company's second deed, the result Of
which was a complete agreement that
/ the interest of all the creditors required
that the affairs Of the company should
be wound up and its property sold for
the payment Of It's debts. Aid of
counsel was sought and advice OBJ
tanned that the wisest if not the only
practicable course to pursue was to in
woke the jurisdiction Of the Chancery
/ Court and ask Its aiu IN the matter.
! praying il at the same time, pending
such proceedings as it should deem
necessary should be had before grant
/ ing full and final relief, to take into its
custody and under its care for preserya-
tion the property Of tine company
HIS NAME PROPOSED.
And at the suggestion Of other
creditors the name OF this respon-
dent was proposed and he was
willing 10 undertake the Office OF re
ceiyer because urgently persuaded
thereto, and because he felt. from his
past connection with the mills, great
interest IN their matters and great con-
cerD that the failure Of the company
should occasion a small loss as pOssi-
ble TO all Its creditors, many Of whom
were ms personal friends. Il wa sug-
gested 10 him that a. holder OF the
bonds under the lien OF the first deed,
which the Court was about 10 be asked
20 enforce, he might be under some
disqualification for the Office OF receiver.
lie was therefore willing, for no other
reason than 70 Oblge his friends and
serve as well as be could the real In
terest Of every creditor Of the com
pany, and Of the company itself. TO
free himself from this disqualification.
II such It was. by parting with his said
bonds. This be did. and did for the
reason he has mentioned; but ne did il
IN good faith. and without any reserys-
ton Of anv interest IN the bonds. And
when thereupOn this suit was brought.
and he accepted the place Of receiver,
he did 50 with the conscientious pur-
pose of serving faithfully and Impair
TALLY the interest OF every honest cred
itor Of the company and so caring for
the company assets as that they
should be neither saddled with unayoid-
able charges or suffer either waste or
detrIment," and - he now makes
upon MS affidavit all these state
ments 70 the Court, not because
he sets any value 10 himself or
the Office Of receiver. or has any per
sonal end 10 serve by remaining IN Ia,
office, but because he Is urged TO DO 81
by an immense majority IN interest
the creditors Of the company. who aver
that they are satisfied with what be has
done IN Office, and wish that he may
continue TO act-OtherwIse he should.
with the leave OF the Court, decline to
do 50.
THE CHARGES.
MI. Potts then proceeds to answer
in detail and with considerable minute
ness the charges made against him, and
particularly explains the connection OF
himself, Of Potts. Stokes 6 Co., and
the late firm Of A. y. Stokes with the
mill, showing that never was there any
thing unfair II their transactions.
In conclusion he says II Is charged
ID the bill that the company had long
been II the habit OF issuing false receipts
for -four and other goods and raising
money on the faith Of them, substan-
TALLY, indeed, conducting their large
operations and procuring the large sums
necessary for its purposes in this man
neT and that this practice was well
known, OF ought to have been known,
To the directors, and to this respondent
as a director and vice-president.
As To FRAUD.
Respondent utterly denies that If
there was any such practice it was
known to him. And he denies all
charges Of the bill IL this connection in
putting 10 him any participation IN or
knowledge Of any such practice. And
here he takes occasion to say that MS
office Of yice-president imposed on him
no duty and gave him no means OF
knowledge Of the affairs Of the com
pany more than any other director had.
lie was simply to act In the place OF the
president when the latter might be
needed and might be away, and he does
not recollect that he ever performed
but one single act by virtue OF MS Office,
and that was to sign certificate Of
some stock once transferred while the
president was temporarily absent Nor
was there, as he believes and nov recoi-
iects, any other absence Of the president
that called for any action in virtue Of
the office OF yice-president.
lie again denies that he had any
knowledge OF any such practice or
habit Of raising money on fraudulent
receipts as is alleged in the bill. Re-
spondent's old firm OF 4. Y. Stokes s
Go. had dealt for many years prior TO
its dissolution with the mills, selling
them especially great deal Of grain,
and respondents present firm Of Potts,
Stokes 4 Co. have dealt with the mills
for several years, and during this time,
for grain sold or other credits given,
frequently receipts have been taken for
wheat stored In the mills 10 be de-
liyered BY the company when demanded
RESPONDENT never doubted that every
such receipt represented wheat actually
in store, and on q single occasion, and
that one many years ago, the old
firm Of 4. Y. Stokes 4 Co. holding
such a receipt ID some transaction, and
herominr dissatisfied with the prompt