Waterbury evening Democrat., 1890-01-27
ARGUED BEFORE JUDGE TENN.
Receiver Davis of the Matthews ( Willard Go Given Until February to Prepare a Report.

Willard Co Given Until February l
 to Prepare a Report.
 The preliminary arguments on the motion to remove Receiver Davis of the Matthews & Willard Manufacturing company were heard this morning be- fore Judge Fenn in the superior court room.
 The stockholders of the insolvent con cern, who petitioned, through their attorneys, Terry of Waterbury, and Hungerford of New Britain, for the re- moval of the present receiver are as follows: The Waterbury Lumber & Coal Go, Farrell Foundry and Machine Co, Waterbury Printing Co, White & Wells, Waterbury Mfg Co, National Bank Button Co; Estate of s. E Perry, of Watertown; Russell & Erwin Mfg Co, of New Britain; s. A. Galpin, receiver of New Haven Wire Co; First National Bank of Litchfield: John H. Stone, Hamilton, Canada; Vessels Metal Co. of city, county and state of New York.
 The motion for a removal was a lengthy one and touched first on the appointment of c. N. Wayland as re. ceiver on the 16,h of February 1889 calling ill the same order for the pre-. senting of all claims before July 1, 1889; the order of the court on the 22nd ot March of the same year, to sell at publ iC auction all property of the corporation the motion of other stockholders on the same day, to rescind the previous order the hearing on April }, of the motion tc resclnd, and the setting aside of the mo- | tion.
 The body of the motion was an em phatic argument relative to the peculiar l methods for conducting business, of the present receiver: spoke of his pur chase of claims at a discount and accru. ing the percentage of profits to his own advancement. The assets are now forty | to fifty thousand dollars more than tho liabilities. The receivers promise te pay dollar for dollar on indebtedness and ten per cent to stockholders was re. ferred to. Now there was nothing fo1 stockholders, and only 65 per cent fol creditors. The motion went further tc state of the overbearing manner of the present receiver, his ungovernable tenn per, which had driven from the concern | the best men in the corporation, among them being Messrs Matthews and Ire land. It was general charge of mis management clear through. The counsel for the receiver, John w filling of New Haven, and l.. F. Burpee entered a general denial to the motion | setting forth the present condition of the l financial part of the business as a proof
 
 that the business was in every way con ducted properly. The argument ot denial was simply retrospective of the motion.
 Judge Fenn said that he had allowed more time than was really necessary in the arguments, but he wished to get an issue so as to have his decision on a good footing. He offered as suggestion that the attorneys for both sides. together with the interested parties, hold short parlance and come to some mutual un, derstanding. His suggestion was re- ceived with favor and the following proposition was presented for acceptance by both sides The present receiver tc present his report for inspection on o1 before February 1. His resignation must also accompany it. A new re. ceiver will also be appointed on the same day.
 Judge Fenn then adjourned court un- til Friday morning at II o'clock.