Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-01-09

filed his answer in the equity suit. juror
Lynch reprimsnded and discharged by
Judge Slagle for lying.
Jacob II. Miller. Esq, Yesterday fled his
report as Auditor in the matter of the dis
tr1bution of funds in the hands of J. II.
Bailey, assignee of Graf, Bennett s. Co.
The amount distributed is $4,000. The
firm, it is stated, on February 2, 1883, as
signed to P. H. Miller, who afterward re-
signed, and ex-Judge Bailey was appointed
assignee in his stead. The effects of the firm
were the Clinton Iron Works, the Millvele
Iron and Steel Works, and the new mill in
Millvale borough. The property was COW
cred with first mortgage given to the New
York Life Insurance Company for
S450, 900 to secure bonds, pay
able in three years from 1888,
and second mortgage for $500 900 given a day
later to Hay Walker, trustee. On July II, 1885.
the assignee obtained permission from Court to
sell the property, and on August IA he reported
that it had been sold to J. W. Friend, James NJ
Bailey and James Rickands trustees Tor Ger
tain Of the creditors, for SG5,05O in cash. The
report of the sale, not being excepted to, was
confirmed. The creditors represented by the
trustees were the Benwood 1roa Company
Nimick & Co., Shoenberger & Co. Outhwaite
d Co, Cochran & Sons, Spalding Iron Com
pany, Minnesota Iron Company, Falcon Iron
Works, Witherbees, Sherman d Co., j. w.
Moore & Co, Pittsburg and Lake Erie Rail-
road Company, w. K Hart & Co., +. N. Hof
stall & Co., J. w. Friend & Co., Carnegie,
Phipps & Co.. Limited, Carnegie Bros, Linn
ited, Riverside Iron Works and E P. Wilbur.
The first account of the assignee, showing
S2aO5O, was filed, and turned over to master
for distribution. Exceptions were filed to it
and it is still pending.
THE SCHEDULE REPORTED.
The second account of SIS. .464 90, not includ-
ing that in the first account was referred to Au-
ditor Miller TO reporta.schedule Of distribution,
and pass upon exceptions which were also filed
60 it. The auditor being of the opinion that
the exceptions filed do not involve diminu-
tion of the funds for distribution, reported a
schedule for the distribution of Sl75, 600 less
the expenses of the report, hearing schedule,
etc The schedule shows the claimt to amount
to Sl,lS3 423 q with interest of s., $50 43, max
ing total of 81, lS6. ll2 20 The expenses of the
audit ETC., amounted to S547, leaving for dis
tribution In pro rata proportion STA 453. The
schedule included dividend on the interest on
the mortgages. The total number of claims
was I94
The largest creditors of the firm are: Car
negie Pros. $50, 443 "a; James Cochran. Sons &
Co., 81, ,372 so; George h. s. P. Ely S62 $40 35;
T. w. Hofstott & Co., S50755 81; ]. w. Moore
& Co., $50. .460 Al; P. 81. Miller, trustee, $l02,
rs Il; New York Life Insurance Company,
S4O3 600; Pickands, Meather & Co., $47, 894 81;
Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Company,
$3l, $40 q; Spaulding Iron Company, $59, 266 S4i
Witherbees, sherman & Co., So, Al 81; Hay
Walker, trustee, S65 600; E. P. Wilbur, SGT, 200,
The auditor has not as yet passed upon the
exceptions to the assignee's account
Ex-Judge ]. II. Bailey. the assignee, yester-
day filed his answer in the equity suit brought
by the creditors outside of those in the syndi-
cate for which Friend, J. NJ. Bailey and Pick
ands are trustees, in which it is alleged that
the sale of the mill property was fraudulent
Rnd the price received inadequate.
PROOFS WANTED.
Judge Bailey first demands proof that the A,
Garrison Foundry Company, one Of the plain
tiffs, authorized the use of its name. He
further denies any knowledge nor has he any
reason to believe that there was any fraud per-
petrated on any creditor He believed it true
that the allegations as to the conduct and
actions Of the parties as stated On the bill were
unknown to the Court and the creditors, but he
ihas no means of knowing how or when the
plaintiffs heard of such alleged conduct and
acts
1t was with pleasure, he stated, that he says
That the defendant James Nj. Bailey, is his
brother, which allegation, he asserts, is scan
dalously injected for the purpose of imputing
TO him, without asserting, unworthy motives;
and ii is also true that before filing the bill
the plaintiffs requested him to commence pro-
ceedings to set aside the sale but it is not true
that the plaintiffs at any time informed him of
the matters and things complained of in the
bill in such manner as would enable him TO
commence proceedings. The counsel of plain
t1ffs wrote him giving general allegations of
the misconduct of the purchases and upon
such general allegations demanded that he i'm
mediately commence proceedings, and re-
Ouested him to answer in 25 hours if he would
do SO. He replied that when he had seen the
witnesses, whom they claimed to have, but did
not name, and had taken the advice of coun,
sci, he would be prepared to make an answer.
They choose to regard this reply as a refusal,
and it is their only warrant for the allegation
of refusal on his part