Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-26

garueu eucn security rs fn tnls rtopeC'
imperfect, and while his firms, and nj
doubt other persons IN trust and trading
with the mills, frequently took such re-
ceipts. as IN some respects strengthen
ing their position. yet respondent
has no reason 10 suppose or be
lieve, and did not believe, that
any such receipts did NOT represent
goods actually on hand IN the mills
or were In any respect fraudulent; nor
did he suppose or believe that moneys
were or could be raised by the mills
from banks or other lenders OF money
on any such receipts. When respondent
became president it came to his know
ledge that there were four creditors
holding receipts which did hot repre-
sent goods on hand. The plaintiff was
one Of the four. lie was himself as
founded at the development, and he IN
stantly reported the facts in his know
ledge TO every creditor, the plaintiff IN
cluded, and declined to renew any note
in such cases or give any countenance
to continuing the transaction. And 50
far frem believing that the mills were
kept up and run and had the money
necessary for their purposes raised
by any such practice, respondent had
reasons 10 believe, and did for years
believe, that Peter G. Warwick, with
his own means and those FURNISHED min
by his personal friends and by his per-
sonal influence and through his personal
friends, raised most Of all the moneys
needed By the mills from time to time.
And often has respondent known OF
Peter c. Warwick fretting and worry
ipg about difficulties Of the mills com
manding IL Richmond the money they
needed. and boasting that he always II
the North could get thousands Of dol
lars, and indeed all he wanted, Tor
the mills on mis- own promises and
those Of the mills. and the re-
spondent believed this was true,
and still believes that In this way
Peter G. Warwick did actually raise
generally all the moneys the mills
needed. 1t is equally true that re-
spondent was equally ignorant Of any
insurance, as stated IN the bill, on pro
perty not in store. and as soon as such
q case came to his knowledge-about
the time he was made president-he
instantly protested and demanded that
no such policy should be renewed. 1t
is said II the bill that the books Of the
company showed all these transactions
and their fraudulent character, and
were or ought to have been known to
the creditors. Respondent denies these
allegations. There was not on the
books OF the mills a trace, as he be
lieves, Of any fraudulent transaction.
OF anything to bring knowledge Of them
to the directors.
THE BILL BOOK.
After respondent became president
be noticed on the bili-book Of the milI-
certain pencil memoranda on the
margin which were not ineligible
but which he learns from the clerks
sicnifed that goods were pledged to the
holders Of The bills. Even this he
would probably not have noticed II
they had not been pointed ont to hIm
by the clerks. This book will be eX-
hibited 10 the Court and the character
Of these entries seen by 1t, but even this
bili-book was not o book which direct
ors are expected 10 see or examine IN
less they doubted the statements Of the
condition Of the mills furnished by It's
officers. which. IN this case, they
never did. There was no reason for
directors examining this book and they
were not In the habit OF doing so.
Respondent, as 8 defendant TO said bill.
expects to answer the same fully and al
much more length than he has done IN
this paper. lie has said this much al
the instance Of the large number OF
creditors VINO urge him not 10 decline
to serve longer II the capacity OF re-
ceiyer and for MS own yIndics-
tion. but he denies in the full
est manner every allegation and
every inference and intimation II sad
bill tending TO implicate hin IN any
fraud OF IT any knowledge Of fraudu-
lent practice carried OF by any one con-
nected with the mills, except so far as
the same have come to MS knowledge re-
Gently as already stated herein.
Respectfully submitted.
THOMAS PORTS.
Receiver OF the Gallego Mills Co.
January %. lesC.
Sworn T. before me this 18th day OF
January. IssC. +. =. TURNER.
Deputy Clerk Chancery Court.
PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY.
AL the counsel II this case were be
lore Judge Holladay yesterday II cham
bers. and had hearing as 10 the motion
for the removal OF the receiver. Con
sideration was also given by counsel and
the Judge 10 the petition o plaintiffs
who have filed d petition asking the
Court 10 set aside and declare null and
void the deed o. assignment. The deed
Is attacked II very vigorous terms, ano
fraud in the making o it Is charged.
Judge Holladay took all the paper
IN the case. and hopes TO be able to
render his decision to-day. Il Is not
certain that he will be able to do so.
but he said last night that he thought