The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1889-04-04
SERIOUS CH A RGEs
Made Against Several Alliance 9th
gcns In Petitions Filed In Com
mon Pleas Court.
The Creditors Of Low l., Lamborn Bald 10
Have Been Cheated Out Of Nearly
$4,000 by Fraudulent Bot
tlemonl The Petitions.

Matthew EARLY As trustee for the
creditors Of Levi II. LambOrn, Of ALI
aace, hna commenced suit In common
pleas court against W 'reetcra n Son,
william Stallcup ana Emery Miller, 70
have the settlement OF u claim OF 9h,'
29p pgWnst 70. Teeler g. Son, made by
SlallCup ana emery, ,aa aBslgnees Of Levi
L., l.umborn, set aside and declared
fraudulent and pray for judgement In
the SUN Of $3.50 and the interest from
february Q, 1870, NJ y per cont
The petition says on March q, 1870,
LambOrn instituted suit against u,
Teelers u Son 10 recover 3S,2s0 with
lulereat NJ y per cent, from February
o, 1870, The case was taken TO the Su.
PRONE Court aud decided IN favor Of
Lamhorn The plaintiffs allege that
thc defendants, for the purpose Of
cheating and defraudlng the creditors
OF l., LambOrn, entered into fra1du'
lent arrangement aud filed q petition In
probate court gtatlng the claim was In
litigation and tho collection waa very
doubtful ana asked the court 10 order
tho claim compromised for 5000, ~ Il
would DO 10 the benefit Of the creditors
OF Levi l.. Lamborn.
The plaintiff further says the petition
was false and untrue as the claim was
not doubtful, u. Teeters q Son being
able 10 pay the full amount OF the
Judgment and the creditors OF Lamborn
were thus defrauded out OF q large sum
OF money. The plaintiff claims said
fraudulent arrangement was entered
into aud the settlement procured by the
efforts OF tho defendants for the sole
purpose Of CHIT ating aud defraudlng the
creditors Of said Lamborn,
A SIMILAR SUIT.
Suit has also been brought In Common
Pleas court by Matthew Early as trustee
for Lamb0rn 81 Gray against Elisha
Teeters, Richard W. Teeters, William
Stallcup and Emery Miller, asking for
Judgment against elisha Teeters In the
sum OF 81 600 In favor OF the creditors
OF Lamborn % Gray,
The petition says on December "a,
1883, Lamb0rn % Gray made an assign.
ment At this time tho firm held o
note eigned by Elisha TCoterg, with
Richard w. Toeters as security, for
81 900 due on December 20, 1893 On
September z, 1883, Richard W. Teeters
held o certificate Of deposit upon said
bank for $1,000 payable six months
after date The plaintiff claims that
nearly one year after the assignment
the said defendants entered into q
fraudulent arrangement whereby Rich.
ard w. TeeterB transferred the Certf.
cate Of deposit to Elisha Teeters for the
fraudulent purpose of enabling Elisha
feeters TO turn same over In payment
OF the note.
The petition says TO further said
fraudulent arrangement The trarsfer
was dated back TO December H. 1888, 80
as TO make II appear as IL II had been
done before the assignment was made.
rhe plaintiff says on May 20, 1885, the
defendants went into the Probate
court and falsely stated they be.
lieved Richard W. Teeters had assigned
said certificate on December II, 1888, TO
Elisha TeeterB TO DO used for the pay.
rnent OF said note and that Stallcup and
Miller knew the statement was false
and had not been signed until after .he
assignment.
The petition says that by said fraud.
uleut conspiracy between said defend
ants the Probate court was wr0ngfully
induced to make an order TO settle the
claim as prayed for In the petition, and
therefore the creditors Of Lamb0rn "
Gray were defrauded to the amount Of
the notes