New-York tribune., 1886-03-18

,1on Jisroset I'm The comp,ant. Here the causes OF nc
ttv m" same and ncrn is no why their respco
rive rights should he determn ned ia this action.
Accompanying the report are forty-seyen findings oi
fact eleven conclusions OF law ana DEGREES entered upon
,hs Indictment which the referee is empowered Ia make
The GudinAs are that the firm OF Grant ward was
formed on Jnly l. 1850 aLd consisted OF j. D. ti'h'
Ulysses $ Grant, ir, and Ferdinand ward ON N'Vem-
ber l. 1850. Ulysses :. Grant became meinh-T lhe
firm failed on May 6, 1881, being "utcriy and hope
lessly iusoIyent and MAY Ward ANA ms WHO
transferred TO W. Warner the real and personal prop
ery In dispute The next day the firm made Us 'sS'-n
ment to Jucn T. Davies, who became receiver oI INC
firm on the following day. OF May II "'r' ""'o Ms
assignment George c. lIo- In the partnership 'see
rcut one OF the provisions was Tor DOM any on''
80 nat ollccteJ TO by one or more OF the
parties Thereto" The profits were tn bc dvd'S monthly
and the business of the nm WAS TO De cohducte" oy
Ferdinand Ward. who was to have power TO Sl2
cberk and receipts ANA orders and do sOch other
things as might be necessary FOR the proper c"nNuchg
of the business" on November l, 1880 on the ayment
Of $50 COO L. s Grant was admitted partner with
aoue-seyeDth pro rata Interest, while on December /!
lssO. Oh the payment of $4,000 more General GrahtS
interest increased to one-iourth the capt stock
becoming 100000 At the date OF the formation OF the
firm Ferdinand Ward utterly and h0pele'sW IN
solvent owing - DO 900 than he able to pay
None Of the partners contributed any cash capital eX
ccpt paid by L. : Grant jr on June 80, Is7O
aud the 100000 paid by General Grant
The blsness Of the firm conducted entirely by
FcrdinarI Ward. who kept private accounts unknown
to the other mcmhers of ;hc hrm In which IE-e p"'
OF the firms dealings entered and in lS-2 e opened
Grant Ward special" account in the Marine h'iiH,
the pass aud check books Of which were kept oy h'
,pkrovn to any other member o; rrn exc ut Fish
Furthermore. Wari kept exclusive contro OF Ms i"
ydua check and pass books aad his nd'ydua hhlK "c'
counts were mere covers for moneys Withdrawn OF uh
from the irms bank account or from the rm assets
or borrowed upon the credit OF the hrm rou N"iou'
parties" ,.,,
cree finds Ward received from Warner $63323oO, and
paid him $77s7,6 81 alleged contrae's = these
contracts declared fraudulent ana part of MarGs
scheme TO keep the firm alive Inc none! trdIu ~
Ward to Warner fraudulenty obtained by Nard on
the firms credit andwlthdraWn from tne asses " % m
firm iu>Olycnt being paid TO warner WIZ" ihl'lt ou
Wards part 10 dcfraud. The pad TO Warner was
S1455 36i ri Thc only consideration given by War.
the paper writings Which we're lhVoii ~ ~
against he firm. Warner parted with no value ior the
couvevances and not purchaser for tnr VAIN" OF tu"
property Thereferee finds that none Of the ueirnus'
has any lien ON the property eN'ept i'e'i.e' . 20 "a
alone has any claim or lien upon 'Ae money Ie
In his conclusions at law the referee holds that the
payments excess are vOil that arG'I mus, account
Sll03gl 20 interest from May g. l@SL makes
395 30 51 that the convcyances are yoln ana the
creed OF the receivers paramount rght warner
l. ordered T. over the money and Mr. ana MIS-
Warner are ordered to reconvey the property % Re
ceiycr Dtve, within twenty Gay JoIh l. NII.on
receiver Of the proceeds OF Wards Brooklyn property
of Stamford property and the One-haf inter 81 III
the Boo,h's Thettre r"JpeIty ls orttrl 60 u ~ ~,
over 10 receiver ana al! those interested dr'nr
reciea 10 enforce any claims they may have a-nsl re
ceivor Davies. Nj warner IS to pay the costs oi 'he
The lawyers say there is doubt n wheheran tn
execution against Mr. Warmers body wOud hOh III case
peienptory measures were taken TO enforce the pay
Wilii, m r U1T8hlowcr the counsel Of receiver
says he VIII hesitate 10 press the decision To n
Conclusion. matter what the consequences WA nt
An appeal to the General Term Is expected an" ia .h
S~ary TO the amount oil twice me Ju'-menV VIZ
have 20 ue gwen, some S27OOOOO The properly so
tlt4r pl
from It. Receiver Davies sad:
II am naturally Ii-hy cratifed. The jndgment Il
what have from the first expected" ON May - leoi
Mr. Davies secured Injunction restraining NJ VAR
}' wn ro dsta IA. ' rsccIcr III not Pres. his own suit
against because all the issues were bound
Mr WsrhCr ms friends and his counsel have all along
dGssSS DIGESTION Of sooG f or bd faith and IN view OF
decision point they regard the present result IA
If he dcc.son should he that Mr. Warner had acted In
good Itn then there would be no doubt tat be wOnd
be entitled retain tho moneys when hdd come 10
faiIh II is also Their opinion that as criminal pro.
credipgs must depend FOR their efficacy bad
faith. the referees decision viii naturally IN
Sscon 5fFF WITH mr f4ac s1cr R RGeC%5%s aPpea tie ca @
John L. parsops who succeeded Charles B. ALeXandfT
Mr. warmers counsel hold that as Mr.. acted
IN good fh Grant Ward are liable to nm on thelr
obligations and the moneys he received on them ana c
counsel understood that if there was decision asainst
him there would be an accounting 10 He5crnne "n1t @
cess OF what he put u The is that there shall
be an accounting and then the referee proceeds himself
10 dee ermine the amount, which he orders to be paid
The decision reduces the case TO what j. substantially
qu stion o. law MI Warmers counsel do not believe
That there law 10 support the decision
Those questions Will be renewed ln the
higher courts" Nj Parsons spoke these wordsin calm
decided manner. ana then added slowly: Extraordinary
cases frequently resulted the determination OF extra
ordinary principles of law The counsel for Mr. warner
coucede tine TO be extraordinary but thry thlnk
that controlled by wcsettled principles and that
applying them TO the case, the decision should not
stand"
with the conclusions Of law &
THAT IS about it,
"What effect do YOU think the decision the matter
OF faith will have touch ng any criminal proceedings
81 should think, great deal, would not yOu when 1t
Is necessary criminal proceedings that bad faith
should appearP
The lawyers in the litigation have been as
follows: General Thomas H. Hubbard for George
G. Holt, assignee OF Ward; James C. Car
ter, Charles D. Alexander and John Il.
Parsons for Mr. Warner; william b. Hornblower. for
Rscever Davies; Charles W. Bangs for Walter = John
stOn receiv of the Marine Bank; James Mckeen, for
the dover interests OF Mrs Ward.