New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-17
BUSINESS TROUBLES.
A SUIT OVER A DISSOLUTION.
THE BATEMAN FAILURE COMES TO THE FRONT

THE BATEMAN FAILURE COMES TO THE FRONT
AGAIN-ARGUMENT FOR An INJUNCTION.
The Bateman failure came into court Yesterday
In an indirect manner in a suit over the dissolution
of the firm OF \. j. Wright d Co., of Buffalo. 1t
appears from the papers in this suit that Charles
L. Coon is a special partner in the firm of A. J.
Wright d Co., and general partner in the firm OF
Baeman d Co. lie put $4,000 in the firm Of
Wright Co., and since the Bateman failure he has
brought suit for the dissolution of the Buffalo firm
and an injunction to restrain the other two partners,
A. J. Wright and James l.. Gladwin from disposins
Of any OF the assets of the firm The suit came be-
fore Justice Patterson, in the supreme
Court, Chambers, yesterday upon motion for
such an injunction. While this motion was being
argued sevcra aridavits nlade by Nj. Wright and
Mr. Gladwin were read
The documents deny the charges made by the
assignee of Bateman Dc Co. TO the effect that james
l. Gladwin surrcptitiOuSy took SOC shares Of Lake
Shore stock from Ba,eman IL C0mpanys Office and
thereby caused Batcman & Conpaiy'S failure Cir
cumsances are also forward which are pleaded in
justification Of the action which Nj. Gladwin did
take Mr. Wright. in his affidavit saws that on De
cembcr "a last he learned by letter from
Coon that Walter Watson. IT.. one Of the
general partners of Bateman & Co.. about to with
draw from the firm. lie believed that such with
drawal would greatly weaken the firm and he believed
the firm about to become insovent. Upon gain
ing this information he TO the city and saw Coon
at satenan d Co.'s Office Coon told Wright that the
firm Of Bateman d Co. was in trouble and that me-
Coon, was bound 10 get out before the crash came
For this also he had given Wright warming be
cause he did not want to Wright and GIadwin
ruined without giving them warning.
lie told Wright that lie ought TO take Wright CO.'S
account out of Bateman & Co.'S hands Immediately
and that Bateman could let them out without loss to
them, if he chose to do Coon told wright 10 sec
Bateman Wright then went to the office OF open
helm & Co. and the latter firm agreed to take any OF
the stock which the firm Of Bateman Co. held when
belonged 10 Wright & Co. Wright then went back to
Bateman a. Co.'S Office and demanded the stocks held
by Bateman d Co.. saying he was ready 10 take llein
up Wright tried TO see Bateman put ne wa, nI1 sue
cessfu and returned to the Office. Then Coon tod MN
that Bateman had lied to him dozen times ana tidt
he Coon was bound TO get out OF the frm at Once.
Europe he had not been at the Office except as he au
sneaked in and out after business hours ICON sSo
said that he had Sat in h oG Geo %h Ills door
Again Wright went TO Batemans house. and saw
Batenan through the gass door but a servant
answered his ring and told Wright mat BatmaH was
saw his partner. Gladwin, 10 whom he re!ated te'e
facts lie tried unsuceessfnllv 70 see Batcnan sfn
latter went TO Bateman Co.'S Office that morning
December 80 and requested Bateman 4 Co T. accept
account 500 shares S Of Lake %s 5so'' SOCK and
at Rateman cos the stock and 6 ae ESF MT IT
Wright SAYS that he did not know eXactN now nun i
Bateman Co. owed his firm as he conid Rt seo
statement of the account lie thought u wa oS So az
5000 however. so they sent check OF 91'ooo 10
Bateman & Co. to balance the account. ,,,,. ,
After these occnrrenceS ICON o W and Wright
anwcred that a. ltsa'onv were rshtt he could not
materially "aeC d snG Coon ticn brought the
nresent suit for dissolution. justice Paterson re
served his decision upon the motion Tor an io'ioN