Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-21
Tyler, TEX, March 10, 1891.

Tyler, TEX, March 10, 1891.
Eon. G. B. Gerald, Austin, Tex:
My DEAR SIR have yours of the 9th
INST In reply / have to say that my firm
represented the plaintiff in the suit of Jay
Gould VS.. the International and Great
Northern railway company in which the
receivers of the International and Great
Northern were originally appointed, and
for this reason my position is
have the appearance of voluntarily
beginning an investigation, nor have / the
inclination further than a sense of justice
requires. Courtesy, however, requires me
So reply TO your inquiries.
Al the February term, 1889, of our dis
trlr1 court our firm instituted a suit for
air Gould VS.. the International and Great
Northern railway company on plain prom
is5ry notes for several hundred thousand
dollars. The suit was regularly Gocketed.
Citation was issued and served, and on the
first day of the term we appeared in coutr
for the plaintiff and Mr.. E. c. Merriam of
St. Louis fer the defendant company, with
power of attorney duly executed by the
rOmpauy after the filing of the suis, au-
hurI2!ug him to confess Judgment
IN favor of Mr. Gould. When
tits step was professed TO be taken
Mr. Horace Chiffon promptly arose and
made objection to the entry of the judg-
meat, having filed no pleading, however,
tnd only stating verbally that he intended
10 file interventions in behalf of certain
clients who held claims for personal in
jlrIeS. The court thereupon refused to
enter the judgment and postponed the
ease until Friday. appearance day.
IN the meantime MIR. Chiffon filed two in
teryeutions, one in behalf of J. w. Mitchell.
who had 4 Judgment against the Missouri
Pacific railway company mot the lnterna-
toual and Great Northern), which was then
pending on appeal in the supreme court on
Supersedeas bond, and which judgment
wd> afterward reversed and remanded, and
one in behalf of Gus Taylor, who had a suit
pending for mental anguish against the In
iernational and Great Northern and Mis-
Souri, Pacific railway companies, which had
never been tried. and which in my opinion
was manifestly bad. On general demurrer
A,r Duncan filed an intervention on hehalf
OF W. NJ Brazzille, who had suit pending for
personal injuries against the International
and Great Northern and Missouri Pacific
railway companies. Mr. Herndon inter-
Vened in behalf of the Missouri, Kansas
hud Texas railway, claiming TO be stock
holder. All the interventionS under oath
alleged that the Gould debt was fraudulent
and fictitious, and asked for the appoint
nent of a receiver or receivers. Alter
some preliminary skirmishiag, the details
~ ~ HIGH nave given you, inc
c,.Iue on for hearing on Saturday of the first
week of court. Judge Baker of Houston APP
p'ued with Mr.. Merriman for the
International and Great Northern.
and vigorously opposed the receivership
upon many tenable grounds. Notwith-
Standing, on that day 7. r. Bonner and n.
". Finley were appointed receivers. Twill
state in this connection. that a current ru-
NOR was prevalent during the whole week
before the matter was acted on, that re-
reivers were TO be appointed, the rumors
conflicting slightly as TO who were to be the
receivers. Col. Bonner. for reasons salts
factory to himself, did not signify his
acceptance of the trust until the Monday
following In the meantime, however, be-
fore this, am very reliably informed, the
receivers and intervening attorneys held
meeting among themselves and parcelled
nut the positions and spoils. if I may so
style it. Herndon was appointed at this
meeting general solicitor with salary of
$4,000 and Chiffon and Duncan, general
attorneys, with salaries of $500 each, etc.
The record does not show that the
allowances have been made matter of
record. nor whether this is on
account or in full.
On March II, 1889, Mr. Finley resigned
as receiver and MIR. j. NJ. Eddy, who had
been the general manager Of the road. was