Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1889-10-03

according TO the truth was signed by the
| parties. that is by myself aud wife and Mr..
| Hughes. 1 cannot admit that what purports
to be a copy of this agreement is such, and
call for the original So far as | recollec,
the paper served in such copy. When this
paper was signed Mr.. Campbell re-
quired that 1 should give him a
| written promise to PaS him out OF
the purchase money coming to me S25,-
OOO This 1 did, and he now holds the
promise
| have had several interviews with Mr..
Campbell. but in no one Of them has it been
pretended that the said Hughes was 10 buy.
or had bought, in his own behalf, or that his
relation to the property was other than that
| of a mere medium or trustee through whom
the English company was TO acquire the
property In one of these interviews, which
occurred on the 10th of April. at the Bank
of Washington. Mr.. Campbell stated that
| the credit of three years, fixed by the agree
ment for the debentures and deed of trust to
| run, was objected to by the English parties
as too short, and he proposed 10 extend the
credit TO ten years
At no time since sse said sale has there
been any application BY said Campbell to
me, or any act or declaration on his par
known to me save in furtherance of the said
contract of sale to the English parties The
said English company has alone since the
said contract of sale claimed, and now
claims, the right to said property, and this
claim had been supported to the extent OF
their power by the said Hughes and Camp
bell. who seek in reality, as 1 believe, no.
the property, but the extravagant amount
| to be paid therefor to the former by the En-
glish company if the latter shall acquire the
property,
I have read the ass4vit of James E
Campbell filed in this cause. say the aft
davit is calculated to mislead because, whilst
not denying, it carefully suppreSses the real
character of the transaction between myself
and Mr. Hughes, which is set forth in this
affidavit and that of Mr.. Clarke.
Apart from this the said affidavit
is, in many of its statements, mac
curate 1t is utterly untrue that on
the 10th of April l was notified
by said Campbell that Hughes would carry
out the agreement, and would require from
me the conveyance as stated on Page ). l
recollect the interview. 1t was at the
Bank of Washington. What Campbell said
was that the English parties would probably
buy, and TO that responded ''AI right
1t is further untrue that on the 9th of May l
agreei to take my abstracts of title to Mr..
Clarke to be completed for "Mr Hughes"
if by this statement vague, like most of the
others is meant that knew Hughes had be-
come the purchaser.
1t is not true that the profits are as stated
,t~oll %l,o@
said profits.
In conclusion, say that the appointment
of receiver would be absolutely ruinous to
the interest of all parties concerned The
business have built up would be necessar-
lily destroyed, to the great injury of myself
and also of my adversaries, if they have the
interest in the property which they falsely
set up and pretend, and without any posi-
BILE advantage to anybody concerned in the
property. l believe the motion for a re-
ceiver is made by my atlversaries for the
purpose of coercion. ALBERT CARRY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
5th day of July, 1889. R. J. MEIGs, Clerk
By N. A. CLANCY, Assistant Clerk.
A true copy: Attest: R. ]. MEIGs, Clerk
By L. P WILLIAMS, Assistant Clerk
In this connection the following ex-
tracts from the affidavit of the brewers
lawyer duly swon to and subscribed
July 3, 1889. and filed with the court
papers in the above cause will be of in
terest as corroborating the testimony of
Mr.. Garry:
That when said Carry handed the said
agreement to said Campbell, the latter
took the former aside, and In a whisper
ing conversation produced paper writ
ing which he asked said Carry to sign;
wherein and whereby said Carry was to
bind himself to pay to said Campbell, in
the event of the brewery being sold to
the English parties, the sum of 100000.
That on the following morning, March 20,
1899, said Carry and affiant went, accord
ing to appointment, to the National Bank
of Washington, and met said Campbell, and
talked over the said matter with Mr.. James,
the president of the said bank, as TO the pro-
priety of said Carry signing said paper
writing under the circumstances. The mat
ter was talked over and discussed in detail
by said James, Campbell, Carry and affiant,
resulting in said Carry posi- lively refusing
to sign said writing unless the exact amount
of money to be received by Carry for the
brewery was expressed.
Said Carry and Campbell lat the request
of the latter then left the bank together in
search of Hughes, and within an hour or SO
said three gentlemen called at the law Office
of affiant, when the matter was again dis
cussed, substantially in the same manner
it on the previous night at said
Carry's residence, bat on said Carry abso-
said paper writing TO said Campbell the
matter was dropped. and the agreement |
referred to in the bill of complaint, or one
similar in substance, was executed, and said |
Carry then and there, at the request of |
said Campbell, signed a private paper |
writing wherein and whereby said Carry |
agreed to pay said Campbell the sum of |
S25, 900 in the event of the said brewery |
property being sold to the English syndi- |
cate aforesaid.
Mr. Campbell the Democratic candi- |
date for governor also filed an affidavit |
on July 3, 1885, in which he makes oath |
that he had become an expert in brew
cries, having EXAMINED MORE THAN |
THIRTY OF THEM WITH VIEW TO NEGo-
TIATE THE SALE OF SAME" If he could |
have succeeded in turning over thirty
American breweries to the British |
trust and had picked up 800, 900
for each of them, as he sought to do in
the one case in which his negotiations
have been disclosed he would have be-
come eligible under the rules of the De-
mocracy of Ohio, for a seat in the
United States senate If he had been
obliged to divide with Democrats con-
suls in England say thirty-three per
cent, there would have been So, OOO 600
left for his private expenses as a public
man.
This is an object lesson that we think
the people of Ohio will study with con-
siderable interest, and possibly profit.
The pith and moment of it is in the ex-
act attitude of the Democratic party,
and its chieftains toward trusts
All this and more, anu yet Mr.. Camp
bell in his Batavia speech denied all
with the Mount Vernon or