Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-11-22

issued against him for contempt OF court IN
refusing entrance to the Sheriff was tled at
this iuncture. The respondent said,he was
greatly excited at the time and did not
know what he was doing.
The answer of Daniel Whitlock. trustee,
was next read He stated that he had no
knowledge of Meyers affairs previous to
his assignment. He had participated IN no
fraud and knew nothing OF any having
been committed. In conclusion he ex--
pressed willingness to execute with good
security any bond required by the Court |
tor the faithful performance OF trust.
THEIR AFFIDAvITs READ.
The defendants then submitted affidavits
Of which the following are abstracts;
Daniel Whitlock: Heard that Sheriff
had beeen ordered to take charge Sent 4
for MIR. Cosby to come TO his, store He
came in a few minutes and the two Jumped .
in a hack and went up TO Meyers. Found /
Mr.. Macon there and told him he would be /
admitted at once.
w. W. Cosby. Jr. Same rs Mr.. Whit /
locks. Did not even ask Sheriff to see I
papers, as he was satisfied from his being
there that IL was ell right
Samuel Proskauer: Trustee was select
ed by him, and knew nothing Of the as 4
signment until after the deed had been /
executed.
A testimonial of Mr.. Whitlock's good I
standing in the community was presented. !
II was signed by Messrs. J. b. Pace, ". II. /
Cullingworth, Senator LovensteiD, and I
Others.
More afidavits were then read.
Daniel Whitlock: Had not been in en- /
ploy of julius Never & Sons for seven /
years: is no relation by blood or marriage /
To julius Meyer Il Sons. III. II. Meyer, nor /
wife, and has no,business connection what |
ever with them.
Ii. II. Meyer: Goods were not shipped |
after dark, and it is usual to ship from /
back door.
Mr.. McKenney then read the deed Of "a /
signment. and explained that his clients. /
Messrs. Hood, Fulkrod & Co.. who were tho |
largest creditors of III. II. Meyer. and who |
were IN the third class. were satisfied with !
the deed. He was also empowered TO /
co. cdRcaA for h's'F'' S"'''''r' Pembroke a
Answer of Julius Meyer e Sons.
In the afidavits fled on behalf of the
members of tins firm individually and col
lectively they admit that their firm is one
of the preferred creditors, but deny that
all the preferred claims. which amount TO
about $4,000, are. as alleged, due ii.
IL. Meyers immediate, family. On the
contrary they aver and the deed shows
that all these preferred debts, except about
/ $1,000, are due 10 banks and Others who
have furnished money TO IL. II. Meyer to
carry on his business. and 10 pay in part
some of these very creditors who are now
/ making these untrue charges. IL Is true that
/ these banks have required security before
/ furnishing said money, and this security
/ julius Never Il Sons furnished IN large
/ part, hut that fact instead of being rea-
| son why they should not be preferred,
| furnishes one of the most meritoro us
amongst merchants best recognized guards
/ for such preference. julius Never Sons
| further deny that they are preferred for
the sum of Sl0,91G, as alleged IN said bill.
RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS.
| This allegation is so reckless IN the PLAIN
| declaration of the deed that it is hard 90
l resist the belief that ii was an Intentional
mIsstatement. The debt owing julius
/ Never & Sons. instead of being Sl0.970, is
really 81 ,2l9; for debts for which they are
| preferred are only 81. 1913. These allegations
are but samples. showing the character OF
the charges contained in this bill-charges
so reckless and extravagant that one of the
petitioning creditors found 1t necessary
| expressly 20 decline uniting therein,
though he Joins in the assault upon the
deed. Another Of said reckless charges ~
that III. N. Meyer secretly shipped and re-
moved from his store q large bulk Of his
goods. and whether the same are now
stored in the house of julius Meyer d Sons
your orators are not informed" Julius
| az
cious libel upon them, and libel without
the merit or courage of direction. They
deny this charge with indignation.
NO SECRECY.
They do not believe that any such in
formation reached complainants, but If It
did they believe, and they charge, that IL
had and has Its sole origin and foundation
in malignant or enyious falsehood. Their
store has been opened 90 and actually con-
stantly visited without restriction by the
representatives of the parties making
these charges, and they did not need 10
RELY on information and belief. for if this
allegation had been true they could
easily have seen for themselves and
substantiated it. julius Meyer Il Sons
court the fullest investigation of their
store and stocks and books, andthey aver
that such Investigation will result in the
complete refutation of all the charges
made in said bill against them. They
know nothing of the alleged bill Of sale 10
Julia c. Never, except that they know she
had resources other than such rs she de-
rived from her husband, the said IL. Ii.
Meyer.
KNEW NOTHING or IT.
The first knowledge they had Of said bill
was when they saw the same IN the news
papers, which was some time after the exc
cution 10 Whitlock, trustee. They deny
upon information and belief that said deed
was executed by III. II. Meyer for the pur-
pose Of hinderng, delaying or defrauding
his creditors, or that said deed formed part
of q scheme 10 so defraud bis creditors.
They do not believe that Ii. II. Meyer
ever entertained any such purpose, but II
such was his purpose it never was con-
yeyed % julius Meyer & Sons, never was
known to them, and never participated IN
by them. The sole object was as far a5
they knew TO secure and prefer bond-fde
creditors who had claims on II. II. Meyer
a thing in accordance with both law and
morals and the custom Of the mercantile
community here.
BUSINESS SEEMED GOOD.
julius Meyer d Sons had no intimate
knowledge Of the affairs Of Ii. II. Meyer.
They knew he was buying actively, but
they did not believe that he was 80 buying
in excess Of the needs of his trade. which
seemed 10 be active and growing, and they
did not believe that he was buying other
than legitimately TO meet that growth.
Respondents aver that if II. II. Meyers
clerks have been kept night and day re-
ceiving goods, as alleged III the bill, that u
is nothing more than - the custom or every
dry goods house on Broad street-namely,
70 open goods after closing tho store, and
much Of that work is constantly done by
many of them after night, and especially
now while preparing for the Christmas
/
said clerks of II. II. Meyer were doing.
Respondents have thus fully and ex-
plcitly answered all the allegations Of said
bill so far IA the same affects them. They
are content TO submit the validity of their
claim and the propriety Of their conduct
TO this honorable Court, and pray that
this answer may be treated as cross-bil.
More Afhdavits.
W.D. Meyer made affidavit that he bad
seen A. Steinhardt Il Co., Lehmaier d Co.,
Lee. Tweedy u Co., S. Baerlein, Gsrtner
& Friedheit, New York; Galland Brothers
& Co, Wilkesbarre, Pa; Folwe!l Brothers
q Co., Philadelphia, who. while uniting IN
the prayer Of the bill, did not loin IN the
charges against julius Meyer Sons.
A III. Meyer knew nothing of II. II.
Movers affairs until the morning OF No.
yember sth, when be went TO get money
due his firm as promised. He inquired into
his brothers affairs, found he was hope
lessly involved, and on the morning OF the
10th, advised him 10 make an assignment.
Before engaging any of II. IL. Meyers
clerks he consulted Mr. Mcclure, his
counsel, who told him there would DO no